READING ISSUES OF WEALTH AND POVERTY IN LUKE-ACTS

By TUO;\lAS E. PUII. LlPS READING ISSUES OF WEALTH AND POVERTY IN LUKE-ACTS

Thomas E. Phillips

Studies in the Bible and Early Christianity Volume 48

The Edwin Mellen Press Lewiston·Queenston·Lampeter Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Phillips, Thomas E. Reading issues of wealth and poverty in Luke-Acts I Thomas E. Phillips. p. cm. -- (Studies in Bible and early Christianity; v. 48) Includes bibliographical references [and index]. ISBN 0-7734-7473-0 1. Bible. N.T. Luke--Criticism, interpretation, etc. 2. Bible. N.T. Acts--Criticism, interpretation, etc. I. Series.

BS2589.P48 2001 226.4'06--dc21 00-069110

This is volume 48 in the continuing series Studies in Bible & Early Christianity Volume 48 ISBN 0-7734-7473-0 SBEC Series ISBN 0-88946-913-X

A CIP catalog record for this book is available from the British Library.

Copyright © 200 I Thomas E. Phillips

All rights reserved. For information contact

The Edwin Mellen Press The Edwin Mellen Press Box 450 Box 67 Lewiston, New York Queenston, Ontario USA 14092-0450 CANADA LOS ILO

The Edwin Mellen Press, Ltd. Lampeter, Ceredigion, Wales UNITED KINGDOM SA48 8LT

Printed in the United States of America This work is happily dedicated to my 'girls.' To my wife, Annette, To my angel of nine years, Andrea LouAnn, and to my newest angel, Alyssa Joye.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS...... vi

PREFACE...... viii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...... x

INTRODUCTION ......

CHAPTER

1. RECENT READINGS OF WEALTH AND POVERTY IN THE THIRD GOSPEL AND ACTS...... 5

Introduction ...... 5

A Popular Reading ...... 12 (Richard J. Cassidy)

The Ecclesiastical Reader...... 16 (Hans-Joachim Degenhardt)

The Persecuted Reader...... 19 (Walter Schmithals)

The Financially Secure Reader...... '" ...... 20 (An Emerging Consensus)

The Financially Secure God-fearer...... 26 (David Peter Seccombe)

The Residential Reader...... , ...... 30 (John Koenig) Posessions as Symbolic of One's Person...... 34 (Luke Timothy Johnson)

Posessions as Symbolic of Commitment to Social Structures...... 38 (Kraybill and Sweetland)

Conclusion ...... '" ...... 41

II. APPROPRIATING READER-RESPONSE THEORY...... 45

Introduction...... 45

Wolfgang Iser's Literary Theory ...... 49

A) The Text in Iser's Theory ...... , ...... 52

B) The Reader in Iser's Theory ...... 57

C) Interaction between Text and Reader in Iser's Theory...... 66

Further Theoretical Reflections...... 70

A) Who is the Reader in Iser's Theory? ...... 71

B) Who determines what is determinate and indeterminate? ...... '" ...... 74

C) How do we talk about "meaning?" ...... 78

Devising a Framework for Empirical Study...... 79

III. READING THE THIRD GOSPEL...... ,. .... 83

Introduction...... 83

Initial Frames of Reference (Luke 1-4)...... 83

A) The Preface ...... 84 (Luke 1:1-4)

B) The Birth and Childhood Narratives...... 88 (Luke 1:5 - 2:52)

ii C) The Ministry of John the Baptist...... 92 (Luke 3:1-21)

D) The Beginning of Jesus' Ministry ...... 95 (Luke 3:22 - 4:44)

Finding and Filling Gaps (Luke 5-8) ...... 98

A) Calling of Disciples and Apostles ...... 99 (Luke 5:1 - 6:16)

B) The Sennon on the Plain...... 106 (Luke 6: 17-49)

C) Characteristic Works and Teachings ...... 115 (Luke 7:1 - 8:55)

Encountering Negations (Luke 9-14) ...... 125

A) The Mission of the Twelve ...... 125 (Luke 9: 1-62)

B) The Mission of the 'Others' ...... 131 (Luke 10: 1-42)

C) Greed and Discipleship ...... 138 (Luke 11:1-12:48)

D) Hospitality and Discipleship ...... 145 (Luke 13:1 - 14:35)

Bringing Closure to the Reading ...... 150 (Luke 15-24)

A) Parables ...... 151 (Luke 15:1 -18:17)

B) Jesus and Two Rich Men...... 161 (Luke 18:18 -19:10)

Confrontation in Jerusalem...... 173 (Luke 19: 11 - 24:53)

Concluding Reflections ...... 180

Jll IV. READING THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES ...... 183

Introduction ...... 183

Reconnecting to Previous Frames of Reference...... 183 (Acts 1: 1-26)

Discovering New Gaps to Fill ...... 190 (Acts 2: 1 - 6:7)

A) Pentecost and Its Aftermath ...... , 190 (Acts 2:1-47)

Excursus: The Origin and Character of the "Community of Goods"...... 194

B) Life and Death in the Jerusalem Community ...... 200 (Acts 3:1 - 6:7)

Encountering Negations of the Jerusalem Image...... 211 (Acts 6:8 - 19:41)

A) The Ministry of the Seven ...... 211 (Acts 6:8 - 8:40)

B) Events Leading to the Apostolic CounciL ...... 215 (Acts 9: 1 - 15:35)

C) Paul's Post-Council Ministry ...... 221 (Acts 15:30 - 19:41)

Bringing Closure to the Reading ...... " .... " 227 (Acts 20:1 - 28:31)

A) Paul's Farewell...... 228 (Acts 20: 1 - 21 :26)

B) Paul on Trial .. -...... 234 (Acts 21:27 - 28:31)

Concluding Reflections ...... 239

iv V. THE GRECO-ROMAN CONTEXT ...... 243

Introduction ...... 243

Seneca ...... 244

Philo of Alexandria ...... 250

Clement of Alexandria ...... 260

Conclusion ...... 266

CONCLUSION ...... 267

APPENDIX ...... 271

Peter and Paul in the Canonical and Apocryphal Acts ...... 271

A) The Acts afPeter ...... 274

B) The Acts afPaul ...... 279

C) The Acts afPeter and the Twelve Apastles ...... 281

D) Summary ...... 283

Revisiting Peter and Paul in the Canonical Acts ...... 285

Conclusion...... 286

BIBLIOGRAPHy ...... 289

INDEX ...... 363

v LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

BB Bible Bhashyam

BiBT Bible Today

BN Biblische Notizen

BTF Bangalore Theological Forum

CV Communio Viatorium

EE Estudios Eclesiasticos

FN Filologia Neotestamentaria

GBS Guides to Biblical Scholarship

GTJ Grace Theological Journal

JLT Journal ofTheological Literature

JTSA Journal ofTheological in Southern Africa

KTR King's Theological Review

NAC New American Commentary

NEBib Neue Echter Bibel

NIDNTT New International Dictionary ofNew Testament Theology, ed. Colin Brown

vi NTSR New Testament for Spiritual Reading

PlBA Proceedings ofthe Irish Biblical Association

PRS Perspectives in Religious Studies

RSB Religious Studies Bulletin

SM Studia Missionalia

SNTU Studien zum Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt

StPatr Studia Patristica

TJ Trinity Journal

TPlNTC Trinity Press International New Testament Commentary

TSR Trinity Seminary Review

ZB Ziiricher Bibelkommentare

vii PREFACE

The Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles have frequently been used to support a wide range of financial convictions and programs. But these New Testament documents, written by the same author, have been as troublesome as they are intriguing. In a parable about a financial steward in Luke 16:1-9, Jesus seems to commend dishonest calculations. After leaving everything to follow Jesus, the tax collector, Levi, is still able to host a banquet for a large crowd (Luke 5:27-32). The attentive reader of Luke-Acts is impelled to ask if Jesus' command to the rich ruler in Luke 18:22 is meant only for this character or is intended to serve for all who would follow Jesus. Here Jesus tells the ruler to "sell all that you own and distribute the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me." The financial arrangements of the early Jesus community that are described in Acts 4:32-37 have been perplexing for many modem readers. Does the author of Acts understand that the practice of distribution of private possessions and common ownership of property is unique to the early community or binding on all subsequent Christian groups? These and many other questions about money and property have perplexed and even agonized many readers. In this richly detailed study Thomas E. Phillips addresses these questions squarely and soberly. It is a scholarly work that makes use of literary-critical studies, most of which originated outside the realm of biblical scholarship. Phillips develops a reading strategy based on the pioneering literary theory of viii Wolfgang Iser. It is a strategy that must account for the two-way traffic between text and reader. Phillips' fundamental question, however, is simply stated: "How is the reader's understanding of and behavior related to issues of wealth and poverty affected by reading the third gospel [and Acts]?" (p. 83). His reading exhibits a critical, clear, and reflective method. After an enlightening survey of recent scholarship on issues of wealth and poverty and an analysis ofIser's literary theory, Phillips provides a close reading of Luke and Acts. In these chapters he forthrightly engages the text, showing his mastery of the original language and the relevant secondary literature. The questions he addresses to the text are sometimes novel and frequently helpful. For example, he notes the juxtaposition in the third gospel of the story of the rich ruler (Luke 18:18-30) and that of Jesus and Zacchaeus (Luke 19:1-10), and he asks: "Why did Jesus command the ruler to give away everything and then immediately praise Zacchaeus as a son of Abraham when he gave away only half of his wealth?" (p. 173). Phillips concludes that Luke's ovm approach to issues of wealth and poverty is to be found initially in the responses of John the Baptist to his questioners (Luke 3: 10-14). These responses, says Phillips, "affirm the traditional Jewish values of generosity toward those in need (sharing food and clothes) and refraining from greed (taking no more than is due and being content with wages)" (p. 94). Phillips shows that this ethic is coherent with the rest of Luke-Acts and that it is also appropriate in the Greco-Roman world of the first three centuries, as shovm in the writings of Seneca, Philo, and Clement of Alexandria. Not all scholars will agree with Phillips' methods or conclusions. But those who are interested in Luke's views on wealth and poverty cannot afford to neglect his scholarly approach. Joseph B. Tyson Professor emeritus of Religious Studies Southern Methodist University

ix ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This book has its origins in my 1998 Ph.D. dissertation at Southern Methodist University and, accordingly, I must begin by thanking my dissertation advisor, Joseph B. Tyson, for the patient guidance he provided to me throughout my graduate program and dissertation writing. Dr. Tyson demonstrated academic excellence, good professional judgment and personal commitment to me during my work at SMU. Although this volume undoubtedly continues to bear signs of my mistaken judgments, Dr. Tyson's support and advice have vastly improved the quality of this volume. I would also like to thank the remainder of my dissertation committee, Dr. Victor Paul Furnish, Dr. William S. Babcock and Dr. Luis Pedraja. Each of these persons voluntarily accepted and competently fulfilled the considerable obligations of serving on the committee of this dissertation. Dr. Pedraja's expertise in Spanish was particularly valuable. The librarians and staff at SMU's Bridwell Library must also be recognized for their exceptional skill and resourcefulness. Their professionalism greatly reduced the amount of time required for a research project of this size. They have my sincere gratitude-and admiration. Since graduating from SMU, I have accepted a faculty position at Eastern Nazarene College, where I have been fortunate to develop many rewarding x relationships with the faculty, students and staff of that school. Among the many talented students, faculty and staff, I would particularly like to thank Professors Laurie Braaten, Steve McConnick, Tom Oord, and Dave Tolson, who supported this project in several helpful ways, and the staff of Nease Library, who supplied additional bibliographical assistance during the revision of my original dissertation. Relationships with such valued colleagues and students make teaching a true joy. Finally, I would like to thank my wife for her years of love and support. Without her presence for the last fifteen years, I could not have completed this volume. Thomas E. Phillips

xi

INTRODUCTION

Readers of the third gospel and Acts, both ancient and modern, have frequently had their interest piqued by the texts' presentation of issues of wealth and poverty. The "community of goods," described in Acts 2:44·45 and 4:32-35, served as an important ideal among patristic and monastic authors.l Since the rise of critical scholarship, the traditions concerning wealth and poverty in the third gospel and Acts have been the subject of frequent historical investigations. It has, however, been in the last thirty five years, since the 1965 publication of Hans­ Joachim Degenhardt's Lukas Evangelist der Armen2 that critical readers have focused most intensively upon issues of wealth and poverty in the third gospel and Acts. In the years since Degenhardt's monograph appeared, scores of articles and monographs have considered issues of wealth and poverty in the third gospel and Acts. Although societal changes no doubt encouraged this abundance of scholarship,3 factors within New Testament scholarship itself created the climate

I See Luke Timothy Johnson, The Literary Function ofPossessions in Luke-Acts, SBLDS 39 (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1977), 1-2.

2 Hans-Joachim Degenhardt, Lukas Evangelist der Armen: Besitz und Besitzverzicht in den lukanischen Schriften: Eine traditions- und redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung (Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1965).

3 Hans Kvalbein's "Jesus and the Poor: Two Texts and a Tentative Conclusion," Themelios 12 (1987): 80, suggests that issues of wealth and poverty "had no prominent place in NT research up to the early 1970's .... This changed with the new awareness of the world situation in the seventies." His suggestion that this scholarly interest was aroused by a shift in societal norms is no doubt correct, at least in part. Similarly, John Donahue's "Two Decades of Research 2 in which such investigations could mushroom. The most important of these factors was the wide spread acceptance of redaction criticism in the wake of Hans Conzelmann's Die Milte der Zeit. 4 Following Conzelmann, redaction criticism emphasized, in a new way, the significance of examining how Luke had preserved, arranged, and edited the materials which he5 inherited. This concern to understand the character of Luke's redactional tendencies served to highlight those themes, including issues of wealth and poverty, which seem to enjoy particular emphasis in the Lukan narratives. Regardless of the causes of this recent critical interest in issues of wealth and poverty in the third gospel and Acts, the extent of this interest is quite broad. In its first chapter, therefore, this dissertation will survey recent readings of issues of wealth and poverty in the third gospel and Acts, arguing that the dominant reading strategies employed in critical readings of these issues deal inadequately with the diversity of perspectives within the third gospel and Acts. In the second chapter, this dissertation will present an alternative strategy for reading about these issues, a reading strategy which offers more sophisticated categories for dealing with the diversity within the texts. The reading strategy of this dissertation will be drawn from Wolfgang Iser's theory of the reading process, a

on the Rich and Poor in Luke-Acts," Justice and the Holy, ed. Douglas A. Knight and Peter J. Paris (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989), 29-30, suggests that investigations into Luke's perspective on issues of wealth and poverty gain "a new urgency in our age, when the gap between the rich nations and poor nations and between rich and poor in our own nation has become a concern for theology and church life, and not simply for economic analysis and social policy."

4 Hans Conzeimann, Die Mitte der Zeit. Studien zur Theologie des Lukas, BHT 17 (TUbingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1954); ET: Hans Conzeimann, The Theology of Luke, tr. Geoffrey Buswell (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1960). Ernst Haenchen's The Acts of the Apostles, tr. R. McL. Wilson (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971) also made a significant contribution to the emergence of redaction criticism by applying this approach to the Acts of the Apostles.

S Although it is historically improbable that the author of the third gospel and Acts was a female, the masculine pronouns throughout this dissertation are used merely to refer back to the masculine name "Luke." Use of "Luke" as a designation for the author should not be taken to imply anything about the gender or identity of the real author of the third gospel and Acts. 3 theory which seeks to explain how a reader deals with inconsistencies and diversity of views within a text. In the third and fourth chapters, the categories ofiser's theory will serve as the framework for reading issues of wealth and poverty in the third gospel and Acts. Particular attention will be paid to the reader's consistency-building efforts as he 6 progresses through the narrative. It will be argued that the reader, reading these texts sequentially, constructs a number of provisional conclusions regarding wealth and poverty but ultimately concludes that the ethic introduced at the beginning of the third gospel, encompassing generosity and freedom from greed (3:10-14), is in fact the ethic pmcticed by the Lukan Paul and is incumbent upon the reader himself. In the fifth chapter, this dissertation will defend the appropriateness of its reading by demonstrating that its final conclusions can be shown to be appropriate to the Greco-Roman world. It will show that there were readers within the Greco­ Roman world who likely would have reached conclusions about issues of wealth and poverty in the third gospel and Acts similar to the conclusions ultimately reached in this dissertation. In all likelihood, readers who stood within the tradition of (popular) Stoicism, which assumed (and sometimes emphasized) the distinction between mere possession of wealth and the more dangerous attachment to wealth, would likely have reached conclusions similar to those reached in this dissertation.

6 Since the author of this dissertation, a male, is the reader, only masculine pronouns will be used to refer to the reader.

CHAPTER I

RECENT READINGS OF WEALTH AND POVERTY

IN THE THIRD GOSPEL AND ACTS

Introduction

Contemporary critical readers' interest in issues of wealth and poverty as raised by the third gospel and Acts is not novel, but the types of questions which they typically address to the third gospel and Acts about these issues are different from those asked by preceding generations of critical readers. In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, before the ascendancy of form criticism, critical readers expended most of their investigative energies on quests to recover the origins or historical value or both of the traditions within the third gospel and Acts. The task which Arthur Bumstead laid out for Lukan scholarship at the beginning of the twentieth century, "to distinguish between legendary accretion and the historically genuine,"] was widely accepted among critical readers throughout the nineteenth and into the first half of the twentieth century-even though readers were often sharply divided over what was "historically genuine.,,2

1 Arthur Bumstead, "Acts: The Present Status of Criticism," Biblical World 17 (1901): 357.

2 The amount of historical accuracy accorded to Luke's accounts varied widely with most scholars taking positions at one end of the spectrum or the other (Le., accepting the historicity of almost none of Luke's accounts or accepting the historicity of almost all of Luke's accounts). See W. C. van Unnik, "Luke-Acts, A Storm Center in Contemporary Scholarship," Studies in Luke- 6 During this period, the two most intensively debated questions with economic implications for readers of the third gospel were (I) the character of the Lukan sources (i.e., whether or not the third gospel had been influenced by Ebionitism and, if so, whether the Ebionite influence stemmed from the evangelist

3 or his assumed sources ) and (2) the nature of Jesus' original message (i.e., whether it called for a spiritual detachment from one's possessions4 or for a more literal transformation of the believer's social and economic commitrnentss). The most intensively debated questions with economic implications for readers of Acts were the historicity and "communistic" character of Luke's traditions about the "community of goods" (2:44-45 and 4:32-35).6

After World War I, under the influence of form criticism, critical readers developed an interest in the life situation in which individual traditions had been preserved. This interest in the preservation and transmission of Luke's traditions

Acts, ed. Leander E. Keck and J. Louis Martyn (1966; reprint ed., Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980), 20-21, for a summary of the state of pre-redactional scholarship on the Lukan texts.

J In defense of the thesis that Luke used Ebionite sources, see Theodor Keirn, History of Jesus ofNazara Freely Investigated in its Connection with the Life ofIsrael and related in Detail, tr. Arthur Ransom (London: Williams and Norgate, 1876), 1: 97-105. In defense of the thesis that Luke himself gave the gospel an Ebionite imprint, see Colin Campbell, Critical Studies in St. Luke's Gospel (Edinburgh: William Blackwood and Sons, 1891), 171-308. Although support for the Ebionite thesis waned in the early years of this century (e.g., Adolf JUlicher, An Introduction to the New Testament, tr. Janet Penrose Ward [London: Smith, Elder and Co., 1904], 335-36), it has recently been reintroduced in Friedrich Wilhelm Hom's Glaube und Handeln in der Theologie des Lukas, GTA (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1983), 121-88.

4 E.g., Hans Heinrich Wendt, The Teaching ofJesus, tr. Jolm Wilson (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1892), 2: 58-74 and Frederick C. Grant, The &onomic Background of the Gospels (London: Humphrey Milford, 1926), 11-41.

5 E.g., Johannes Weiss, Jesus' Proclamation of the Kingdom of God, ed. and tr. Richard Hyde Hiers and David Larrimore Holland (Chico: Scholars Press, 1971),107-08. Ernst Bammel's "The Revolution Theory from Reimarus to Brandon," Jesus and the Politics of his Day, ed. C. F. D. Moule (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), 11-68, provides an expert account of the readers who have argued that Jesus or early Christianity or both wished to promote a socio­ economic revolution. Bammel, 56-57, also correctly notes that such theories generally have been associated with the communist movement in Europe and the Social Gospel movement in America.

6 See excursus "The Origin and Character of the 'Community of Goods'" on pages 194- 99 of this dissertation. 7 between the time of their origin and their final redaction (as presented in the canonical texts) meant that a new set of questions was addressed to the third gospel (and, to a lesser degree, ActsV Readers began to ask how the individual traditions had been influenced by the life situations in which they had been preserved. For example, in his form critical investigation of Jesus' sayings about wealth and poverty Hans-Hartmut Schroeder suggested that Jesus' most "radical" sayings, those demanding the renunciation of possessions, praising poverty, and condemning wealth, were altered as they moved from one social setting to another. Schroeder argued that these sayings were originally much milder sayings which functioned within a social context which interpreted them in light of the rhetorical tradition of a philosopher making a mental choice between a life of wealth and leisure or a life of philosophy. During their oral transmission, however, these sayings were, according to Schroeder, gradually intensified as they entered into the social setting of early Christianity and its environment of profound eschatological expectation.s

After World War II, under the influence of redaction criticism, critical readers began asking yet another set of questions, taking an increased interest in the canonical form of the third gospel and Acts and the distinctive theological

7 Ernst Haenchen's The Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary, tr. R. MeL. Wilson (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971),24-50, especially 34-39, provides an excellent introduction to fonn critical scholarship and its aims.

• "Haben Jesu Worte tiber Annut und Reichtum Folgen fUr das soziale Verhalten?" ST I (1948): 397-409. Schroeder divides Jesus' sayings about wealth and poverty into three categories: (J) sayings which reflect the social conditions of the time without critical assessment; (2) "radical" sayings which demand renunciation of possessions, praise poverty, and condemn wealth; and (3) sayings which promote "concrete" practices (e.g., almsgiving and lending without charging interest). His primary concern, however, is to explain the history of the second category of sayings during their oral transmission. Fonn critics did not, of course, always agree and Paul S. Minear's "The Needle's Eye: A Srudy in Fonn Criticism," JEL 61 (1942): 157-69, argued for the exact opposite conclusion, that is, that the sayings (or at least the saying about the needle's eye [Mark 10: 17-31]) were gradually diminished during their history of oral transmission. 8 concerns which this canonical fonn was designed to address. 9 The goal of redaction criticism was to produce a consistent reading of the third gospel (and often ActsYo and to present the "theology" of the text and its author. The intensity with which redaction critics pursued questions about the "theology" of the third gospel and Acts quickly resulted in a significant reorientation of Lukan scholarship. Questions about the origins, historicity, oral transmission and pre-canonical preservation of Luke's traditions were overwhelmed by questions about the theological significance of Luke's redaction of those traditions.lI

The rise of redaction criticism saw the rise of the primary characteristic which most clearly distinguishes recent critical reading strategies from earlier reading strategies, the desire to present a consistent reading of the final fonn of the text.12 In their attempts to extract historical data, or to discern the history of a particular tradition's pre-canonical transmission and preservation, or to distinguish between different traditional fonns, earlier reading strategies tended to

9 Nonnan Perrin's What is Redaction Criticism? GBS (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1969) provides an excellent introduction to redaction critical scholarship and its aims.

10 Whereas earlier critics had typically studied the third gospel along with the other synoptic gospels and Acts along with the Pauline letters (e.g., Christian Rogge, Der irdische Besitz in Neuen Testament [Gottingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1897), redaction critics, following Conzelmann's example, tended to study "Luke-Acts," assuming a common purpose for both volumes of Luke's work.

11 On the shift of orientation among Lukan scholars away from the pre-redactional history of Luke's traditions and toward Luke's presentation of those traditions, see, for example, van Unnik, "Stonn Center," 15-32; Charles H. Talbert, "Shifting Sands: The Recent Study of the Gospel of Luke," Int 30 (1976): 381-95; and Hugh Anderson, "Broadening Horizons: The Rejection Pericope of Luke 4: 16-30 in Light of Recent Research," Int 17 (1964): 259-75. In spite of this shift among critical readers, the older sets of questions, though overwhelmed, never disappeared because they were, as van Unnik, 22, acknowledged, "real questions."

12 David Peter Seccombe's Possessions and the Poor in Luke-Acts, SNTU 6 (Linz: A. Fuchs, 1982), 12, provides a clear illustration of the pervasiveness of this distinguishing mark of recent scholarship in the introduction to his investigation. After noting the "apparently contradictory pictures" of wealth and poverty in Luke-Acts, Seccombe explained: "The modem emphasis on the active role of the evangelist as selector and editor of his material forbids our concluding-at least without further inquiry---that Luke simply piled up material without regard to its self-consistency." 9 focus upon selected texts or selected types of texts in relative isolation from their Lukan context. The redaction critics, on the other hand, attempted to present a consistent reading of the whole of the third gospel (and often Acts). Acting on the impulse provided by redaction criticism, critical readers quickly began to offer consistent readings of various aspects of "Lukan theology." Amidst the flurry of specialized studies on assorted theological and social concerns within the third gospel and Acts, Hans-Joachim Degenhardt's Lukas Evangelist der Armenl3 became the first major effort to present a consistent reading of issues of wealth and poverty in the third gospel and Acts. The novelty of Degenhardt's effort is witnessed by the fact that in his 1974 dissertation, "The Poor in Luke-Acts," Thomas Hoyt, Jr. described Degenhardt's monograph as the only "full-scale study of Luke as a Gospel of the poor."l4 The novelty of Degenhardt's inquiry, however, soon came to an end.

The 1970s and 1980s saw such a deluge of articles and monographs devoted to reading issues of wealth and poverty in the third gospel and Acts that John Donahue found sufficient resources from which to construct a history of scholarship on research into wealth and poverty in Luke's writings. IS The primary force behind this surge in critical interest was, as Donahue correctly

13 Hans-Joachim Degenhardt, Lukas Evangelist der Armen (Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwork, 1965).

14 Thomas Hoyt, "The Poor in Luke-Acts" (Ph.D. diss., Duke University, 1974), vi. Similarly, E. Grasser's "Acta-Forschung seit 1960," TRu 41 (1976): 141-96,259-90; 42 (1977): 1- 68, slights issues of wealth and poverty in the third gospel and Acts by devoting only two sentences (on page 66) to these issues, a slight which Robert J. Karris's "Missionary Communities," CBQ41 (1979): 87, n. 20, describes as "disappointing."

IS "Two Decades of Research on the Rich and Poor in Luke-Acts," Justice and the Holy, ed. Douglas A. Knight and Peter J. Paris (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989), 129-44. The swell of specialized studies on issues of wealth and poverty as presented in Luke's writings is also witnessed in the preface to the reprint of the classic Studies in Luke-Acts. The editors mention investigations into the "socio-economic factors in the narrative" as one of only three areas in which Lukan scholarship had moved beyond the concerns of that important volume between 1966 and 1980. See Studies in Luke-Acts, ed. Leander E. Keck and J. Louis Martyn (1966; reprint ed., Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980), 6. 10 notes,J6 the redaction critics' concern to fmd a consistent perspective ("theology") in the whole of each gospel.

Yet the redaction critics' drive to discern a coherent "theology" within the third gospel (or "Luke-Acts") was-as any attempt at consistent reading would bel7-impeded by the diversity and inconsistencies within the texts. For those interested in issues of wealth and poverty the problem has not been finding material to interpret, but rather providing a single reading which encompasses all of the diversity of the Lukan materials. As Donahue's summary of scholarship explains:

While there is almost universal agreement on the importance of possessions, there is no consensus on major issues of interpretation, nor any consistent perspective within Luke-Acts.... Dispossession of goods, cornmon possessions, and almsgiving are all praised. J8 Readers have responded to this lack of a "consistent perspective" in two ways. On the one hand, many readers (including most redaction critics) have posited historical readers who create a consistent reading of the texts on the basis of their extratextual knowledge or experienceJ9 (e.g., a historical context of persecution or "early Catholicism,,).2o The assumptions of this approach are illustrated by Robert J. Karris's insistence

16 Donahue, "Two Decades," 129.

17 On discontinuity and coherence, see Edgar V. McKnight, Post-Modern Use of the Bible (Nashville: Abingdon, 1988),231-35.

18 Donahue, "Two Decades," 135.

19 This concern to relate one's understanding of Lukan theology to conditions within the early church has its roots in Hans Conzelmann. See Theology ofLuke, tr. Geoffrey Buswell (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1960), 13-14. As Talbert, "Shifting Sands," 382-83, explains, "Conzelmann believed, moreover, that Luke's position had to be located in the context of the development of the church. That is, the Lukan tendency had to be related to the occasion of the writing" (emphasis Talbert's).

20 The widely diverging results gleaned by scholars employing this strategy for reading the parable of the rich man and Lazarus are illustrated in Rodolfo Obermiiller's "La Miseria de Un Rico," Los Pobres (Buenos Aires: La Aurora, 1978), 45-66. Obermiiller surveys \3 different readings which have been offered for the parable. He accepts that each reading is plausible given 11 that for purposes, themes, or tendencies to have complete validity it must be demonstrated that they arise from a concrete situation within Luke's community. Otherwise, it is too easy for them to lose their grounding in reality and to float freely on some high level of abstraction where they can generate other ideas and combine with them to form clusters of ideas. These clusters of ideas may have captivating intrinsic beauty, but say little about the reality which they are supposedly designed to explain. 21 On the other hand, another (much smaller) group of readers has declined to posit historical readers and has instead suggested that the texts' consistency is found at a symbolic level, that is, the texts' presentation of economic issues serves one consistent symbolic function throughout the texts (i.e., a demonstration of attachment to an institution or of submission to God's prophet). The assumptions of this approach are enunciated in Luke Johnson's insistence that:

The more generalized and pervasive a motif, the less likely it is to be attached to a specific community stimulus, and this is particularly the case when it can be shown that a passage or motif serves a literary function. . . . In Luke-Acts we should recognize that: a) the literary structure as a whole has meaning; ... b) individual elements within this structure have as their primary meaning a literary function; ... and c) composition can be motivated as much by aesthetic or theological aims as by instructional or polemical ones.22 The following survey of recent scholarship will present representative examples of how each of these two dominant reading strategies has been employed by critical readers of issues of wealth and poverty in the third gospel and Acts, but first a popular reading of issues of wealth and poverty in the third the historical background against which the respective readers place the parable. ObermiiIler tries to overcome this plethora of differing interpretations by adopting "Luke's criterion" for reading the story, that is, reading as one who has faith in Christ. Although ObermiiIler's approach ultimately proves inadequate, he has drawn attention to the problem of constructing reified historical readers for the text.

21 "The Lukan Sitz im Leben: Methodology and Prospects," SBLSP, ed. George MacRae (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1976),219.

22 "On Finding the Lukan Community: A Cautious and Cautionary Essay," SBLSP, ed. Paul J. Achtemeier (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1979),2: 92 (emphasis Johnson's). Also see Dale C. Allison, "Was there a 'Lukan Community?'" Irish Biblical Studies 10 (1988): 62-70 and Richard Bauckham, ed., The Gospels for All Christians: Rethinking the Gospel Audiences (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988). 12 gospel and Acts which has sometimes leached over into critical circles has to be addressed.

A Popular Reading (Richard J. Cassidy)

Although the central issue for most critical readers of issues of wealth and poverty in the third gospel and Acts has been the texts' conflicting views toward these issues, some readers have failed to discover any inconsistent or conflicting views within the texts in regard to issues of wealth and poverty. Perhaps the most important proponent of this view is Richard J. Cassidy, who argues that Luke's point of view (especially as demonstrated by his redactional activities) is consistently favorable to those who were "literally poor.'>23 While the poor receive blessings and consolation, the rich, whom Cassidy defines as persons with "surplus possessions,"24 are confronted with a call "to divest themselves of their wealth."25 Cassidy argues that the third gospel consistently commends an ethic of

2l Richard J. Cassidy, Jesus, Politics, and Society: A Study ojLuke's Gospel (Maryknoll: Orbis, 1978),22-23. The meaning of the "poor" in the third gospel has been debated at length. Hoyt's "The Poor in Luke-Acts" provided a strong defense of the literal economic connotations of the term, a view which reflects the majority of scholarly opinion-even among those who do not consider the term to be important in Lukan thought (e.g., Ernst Bammel, "lhoxos," TDNT, tr. Geoffrey Bromiley [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968],6: 885-915). Others have suggested that the "poor" in the third gospel are the supposed "pious poor" of the Psalms, or the spiritually needy (e.g., Eduard Lohse, "Evangelium fur die Armen," ZNW 72 [1981]: 51-64 and Josef Ernst, "Das Evangelium nach Lukas-kein soziales Evangelium," TGl67 [1977]: 415-21), or the socially and religiously "marginalized" (e.g., Birchfield Charlesworth Preston Aymer, "A Socioreligious Revolution: A Sociological Exegesis of 'Poor' and 'Rich' in Luke-Acts" [Ph.D. diss., Boston University, 1987]; Joel B. Green, "Good News to Whom? Jesus the 'Poor' in the Gospel of Luke," Jesus oJNazareth [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994],59-74; and James A. Bergquist, "'Good News to the Poor'-Why Does this Lucan Motif Appear to Run Dry in the Book of Acts?" BTF 18 [1986]: 1-16).

24 Cassidy, Jesus, Politics, and Society, 25. Cassidy, Jesus, Politics, and Society, 143, n. 23, further explained: "The question that immediately arises is which possessions are surplus and which are essential. Luke's gospel does not provide any specific answers, but the general impression is that almost all possessions are to be questioned."

25 Cassidy, Jesus, Politics, and Society, 24. 13 economic divestiture?6 Cassidy is careful not to suggest that the third gospel was composed exclusively for or read solely by the poor, but he insists that rich persons who appropriated the message which Luke put on Jesus' lips would "give up their possessions.'>27

By assuming the validity of this call to self-impoverishment, Cassidy has momentarily muted the chorus of competing views within the text. In fact, his entire reading strategy, which rests upon a series of unfounded and indefensible assertions, is utterly insensitive to the diversity v,rithin the text. For example, in commenting upon the story of the "rich ruler" (Luke 18: 18-30), Cassidy asserted:

The radical nature of the call that Jesus addressed to the ruler has frequently been noted, but it has been frequently overlooked that the particularly disconcerting element, "sell all that you have and distribute to the poor," is not a stray note that finds its way into Luke's description of Jesus only in this one instance. Rather, it is thoroughly consistent with Luke's general description ofJesus.28 Upon closer examination, however, this bold assertion about "Luke's general description of Jesus" proves to be entirely unfounded. In fact, this story contains the third gospel's only command to "sell everything." Even more ironic in light of Cassidy's claim, this command is not obeyed On this one occasion when it is uttered!

Although many aspects of Cassidy's reading can legitimately be questioned (e.g., his transformation of warnings against the attitude of

26 This reading is, of course, not very far removed from the "Ebionite" readings which flourished in earlier Lukan scholarship (e.g., Campbell's Critical Studies). A similar reader construct is espoused in John O'Hanlon's "Zacchaeus and the Lukan Ethic," JSNT 12 (1981): 2- 26, especially 19, which suggests that the wealthy must voluntarily lay aside "the status, possessions [and] identity of the rich" if they are to live out the "Lukan ethic."

27 Cassidy, Jesus, Politics, and Society, 26-27, 30-31. Cassidy, Jesus, Politics, and Society, 143, n. 24, is aware that his reading of the third gospel stands in direct contrast to the ethos of contemporary first world values. In fact, at one point, he refers to the parable of the rich fool (Luke 12:15-21) "(anachronistically) as the 'anti-capitalist parable.'"

28 Cassidy, Jesus, Politics, and Society, 27. 14 29 covetousness into warnings against the act of possession ), its ultimate demise is necessitated by its facile dichotomy between the rich and the poor. If the rich are those who have surplus possessions and the poor are those who have needs, then what of those who are neither rich nor poor, those who have only enough to meet their essential needs?

Whereas most critical readers have attempted to account for the diversity of views within the text in some manner, Cassidy has chosen simply to overwhelm the diversity via a false dichotomy between the "rich" and the "poor." The rich, who have possessions beyond those needed to meet their immediate needs, receive "generalized criticism;,,30 the "poor," who have insufficient resources to meet their immediate needs, receive "blessings," "definite sympathy," and "concern."31 Although this simplistic dichotomy can be employed to impose consistency upon the third gospel,32 it leaves far too many important questions unaddressed to compel respect from critical readers. For example, can the "poor," in spite of their lack of possessions, be guilty of the covetousness which the text condemns (e.g., Luke 12:15; 16:14)? Cassidy makes no allowance for this possibility. If Luke wanted his readers to accumulate only enough possessions to meet their immediate needs, then how are the readers to understand the commands which could only be fulfilled by those who held significant resources beyond those needed for their own immediate needs (e.g., Luke 10:25-37; 14:13)? Cassidy does not address the issue. And how does one

29 For example, Cassidy, Jesus, Politics, and Society, 25, takes Jesus' warning, "beware of all covetousness" (Luke 12: 15), as a warning against "the accumulation of additional goods." On the importance of distinguishing between a condemnation of greed and covetousness on the one hand and a condemnation of wealth and possession on the other hand, see Robert Koch, "Die Wertung des Besitzes im Lukasevangelium," Bib 38 {I 957): 151-69.

30 Cassidy, Jesus, Politics, and Society, 28.

31 Cassidy, Jesus, Politics, and Society, 23.

32 Cassidy fmds essentially the same teachings in Acts. See Society and Politics in the Acts ofthe Apostles (Maryknoll: Orbis, 1987),2,137, and 140. 15 account for Jesus' seeming acceptance of a number of persons who possess more resources than are required to meet their own immediate needs? Cassidy's suggestion that Jesus accepts their hospitality but calls for their self­ impoverishment is not supported by the text.33

Though readings like Cassidy's have been influential among non­ specialists, it is no surprise that such readings have gained little support among Lukan scholars.34 Readings like Cassidy's offer no plausible explanation of the texts' diversity of views. This dissertation will now examine readings which have gained support among critical Lukan scholars by offering more plausible explanations of how the texts' diversity is to be addressed.

33 Cassidy, Jesus, Politics, and Society, 24, tried to explain this seeming acceptance by interjecting an element of financial rebuke which is foreign to the text. He claimed that "Jesus visits the rich and accepts hospitality from them; but he also calls them to divest themselves of their wealth." The evidence within the third gospel simply does not support this claim. In spite of the facts both that Jesus is frequently a dinner guest (i.e., is shown hospitality) in the third gospel and that these meals often become the setting for controversy stories (e.g., 5:29-39; 7:36-50; 10:38-42; and 14: 1-6), Jesus never rebukes any of his hosts or hostesses for failing to divest themselves of their wealth. On the importance of the banquet motif in the third gospel, see John Koenig, New Testament Hospitality, OBT (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985), 115-19 and John Navonne, "The Lucan Banquet Community," BibT 51 (1970): 155-71.

34 Readings like Cassidy's have had their broadest appeal among those sympathetic to Liberation Theology. See, for example, M. V. Abraham, "Good News to the Poor in Luke's Gospel," BTF 19 (1987): 1-13; Robert McAfee Brown, Unexpected News: Reading the Bible with Third World Eyes (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1984), 21-32, 74-126; Paul Bemile, The Magnificat within the Context and Framework of Lukan Theology, Regenberger Studien zur Theologie 34 (Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1986); and Ronald J. Sider, "An Evangelical Theology of Liberation," Perspectives on Evangelical Theology, ed. Kenneth S. Kantzer and Stanley N. Gundry (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979), 117-33. In spite of the influence which the ideas of Liberation Theology have had on the manner in which many non-specialists read the third gospel and Acts, the Liberation Theology movement has not yet delivered an investigation of wealth and poverty in the third gospel and Acts which was written by a specialist in biblical studies. The contributions which third world biblical scholars have made to the study of issues of wealth and poverty in the third gospel and Acts have tended not to support readings like Cassidy's. See, for example, Guillermo Garlatti, "Evangelizacion y Liberacion de los Pobres," RevistB ns 25 (1987): 1-15. Biblical scholars in the tradition of Liberation Theology have focused more of their attention on the message of the historical Jesus than on the Lukan presentation of that message. For a survey of Liberation theologians' work on the message and person of Jesus, see Paul Hollenbach, "Liberating Jesus for Social Involvement," BTB 15 (1985): 151-57. 16 The Ecclesiastical Reader (Hans-Joachim Degenhardt)

Hans-Joachim Degenhardt, an early redaction critic, made the problem of the diversity of views within the third gospel and Acts his central concern. In fact, the primary interest of his Lukas Evangelist der Armen is better revealed by the subtitle, Besitz und Besitzverzicht in den lukanischen Schriften, than by the title.35 Degenhardt quickly rejected the thesis that the third gospel or its sources display any "Ebionite" exaltation of poverty.36 He did acknowledge, however, that some key texts within the third gospel and Acts contain "a radical demand for the renunciation of property [radikal Besitzverzichts Forderung).,,37 The question of how to read these striking calls for renunciation of possessions within the context of Luke's general acceptance of Christian ownership of property and resources became the springboard for Degenhardt's central thesis.

35 Hans-Joachim Degenhardt, Lukas Evangelist der Armen: Besitz und Besitzverzicht in den lukanischen Schriften (Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1965).

36 Degenhardt, Lukas Evangelist der Armen, 53, 65, and 216. In fact, Degenhardt, Lukas Evangelist der Armen, 46-51, argued that the "poor" (lTTwx6s) is a "mostly religious" description in the third gospel and that "a purely material-economic meaning" of the term is "very improbable." He understood the term as a description of the humble before God, the so-called "pious poor." A similar understanding of the poor in the third gospel and Acts has recently been put forward by Carolyn Osiek's Rich and Poor in the Shepherd 0/ Hermas, CBQMS 15 (Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association, 1983), 24-32. Also see Ernst Lohse, "Das EvangeJium fUr die Armen," ZNWn (1981): 51-64. The notion of the "pious poor" has deep roots within OT scholarship. The most important apology for the OT and intertestamental roots of the concept is found in Albert Glilin's The Poor 0/ Yahweh, tr. Kathryn Sullivan (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1964). This understanding of the "poor" as those who stand humbly before God was established in Lukan scholarship via Theodor Zahn's Das Evangelium des Lukas, 4th ed. (Erlangen: A. Deichertsche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1920). This understanding of the poor (ani in Hebrew) has come under severe attack by OT scholars. See, for example, Norbert Lohfink, "Von der 'Anawim-Partei' zur 'Kirche der Armen,'" Bib 67 (1986): 153-76 and Option/or the Poor, ed. Duane L. Christensen, tr. Linda M. Maloney (Berkeley: Bibal Press, 1987). Hans Kvalbein's "Jesus and the Poor," Theme/ios 12 (1987): 81, insists that OT scholarship has "refuted" the historical reconstruction upon which the notion of the "pious poor" is based and that "[t]he thesis of 'the pious poor' has no tenable basis (though it is still alive among NT scholars)."

37 Degenhardt, Lukas Evangelist der Armen, 215. 17 Degenhardt presents his argument quite clearly. After a brief introductory section, his work is divided into two major sections, the first dedicated to examining the themes of possessions and renunciation of possessions in the third gospel and the second to examining these same themes in Acts. Degenhardt, in keeping with the redaction critical method as laid out by Hans Conzelmann/8 insisted that Luke was not concerned to produce an "uninterested, objective depiction of the past, but rather reform of the church of his time."39 The key to a consistent reading, Degenhardt argued, was found in a proper appreciation for the importance of the ecclesiastical status of the persons for whom the texts were crafted.

As his major thesis, Degenhardt argued that Luke maintained a strict distinction between the "disciples" (l-laEhlTa() and "people" CAaas) in the third gospel and that "disciples" was used to designate a group of individuals called out from among Jesus' larger group offollowers.4o He claimed that

die Forderungen an die l-la811Tal im Lk-Ev-und darnit auch die Forderung auf Besitzverzicht-im buchstablichen Sinne sich nicht an alle Christen wenden, sondem an eine besondere Gruppe von Diensttuenden.41 The result was a two-tier ethic which called ecclesiastical office holders to a more radical set of economic demands than those placed upon other believers. Although Degenhardt suggested that this separation of believers into "disciples"

3S Not only did Degenhardt accept Conzelmann's method, but he also assumed the validity of Conzelmann's presentation of Lukan salvation history. See especially, Degenhardt, Lukas Evangelist der Annen, 15-19.

39 Degenhardt, Lukas Evangelist der Armen, 19.

40 "Die Praxis der ersten Gemeinden zeigt uns, daB nieht aile Glailbigen Beruf, Heimat, Besitz und Familienbindungen aufgegeben haben, sondem daB eine Verpfliehtung auf Grund der Herrenworte nur fur besondere Amtstriiger wie etwa Missionare und Wanderprediger bestand (Lk 10,1-16) .... Vielleicht versteht Lukas die Weisungen und Mahnungen, die den [la8T]VTal gelten, so, daB sie speziell den Dienstleistenden, Amtstragem und Charismatikem gesagt sind. In diese Gruppe dilrften die kirehlichen Dienste des Apostels, Missionars, Wanderpredigers, Evangelisten, Gemeindeleiters und des eharismatischen Propheten gehOren." Degenhardt, Lukas Evangelist der Armen,39. See also, 36-38.

41 Degenhardt, Lukas Evangelist der Armen, 41. 18 and "people" was rooted in the teachings of Jesus,42 he believed that it was particularly helpful for Luke in addressing the "concrete needs and relations" within his own community.43 According to Degenhardt, Luke's depiction of the disciples as an uniquely called group within the larger group of believers served the interest of his day. Degenhardt explained

daB Lukas in seinem Evangelium konsequent die lla8TlTai. absetzt vom Aaos und daB er die lla8TjTa( als Sondergruppe der Anhanger Jesu versteht. So hat sich die Plattform geschaffen fUr eine Anwendung auf die Amtstrager seiner Zeit. Lukas dUrfte dabei das besondere Anliegen verfolgen, den christlichen Amtstragem ein Leitbild vor Augen zu stellen: So hat es Jesus selbst angeordnet, das ist sein Wille, so muB es auch in der zweiten und dritten Generation gehalten werden.44 Although this two-tier ethic and the interpretation of "disciple" upon which it rested have been severely criticized,4s Degenhardt was able to offer a consistent reading of issues of wealth and poverty in Luke-Acts by constructing historical readers who, via their extratextual knowledge about the ecclesiastical structure of the Lukan community, applied the demands of the texts to themselves selectively. Ecclesiastical office holders were to renounce all possessions, though not necessarily in an absolutely literal sense.46 All other believers were free from this "radical" demand. 47

42 Degenhardt, Lukas Evangelist der Armen, 209-14, argued that this two-tier ethic had its historical roots in the Jesus tradition.

43 Degenhardt, Lukas Evangelist der Armen, 214.

44 Degenhardt, Lukas Evangelist der Armen, 215.

45 Donahue, "Two Decades," 136, accurately sums up the overwhelming consensus of scholarship in claiming that "Degenhardt's proposal for a 'two-level' morality of possessions has been strongly rejected. 'Disciple' in Luke-Acts is used not simply for a select group within the larger number of followers of Jesus." Fran90is Bovon's Luke the Theologian, tr. Ken McKinney (Allison Park: Pickwick Press, 1987), 392, is more blunt in its assessment, lamenting that Degenhardt's work "is unfortunately contaminated by an unbearable interpretation of the term 'disciple.'" Also see Walter Schmithals, "Lukas-Evangelist der Armen," Theologia Viatorum 12 (1973-74): 153-67 and Seccombe, Possessions and the Poor, 14.

46 "Lukas hat als Eintrittsbedingung filr Dienstleistende verIangt, den eigenen Besitz zu verlassen (Lk 14,33; 18,18; 5,11.28). Die rechtlichen Besitzverh1iltnisse waren nicht so wichtig; 19 The Persecuted Reader (Walter Schmithals)

Within a decade, another redaction critic, Walter Schrnithals, applied himself to issue~ of wealth and poverty in the third gospel and Acts. Schmithals acknowledged that Degenhardt's study had succeeded in establishing a number of important points: Luke's particular redactional interest in issues of wealth and poverty; Luke's unwillingness to idealize poverty in an Ebionite fashion; and the texts' seemingly inconsistent views regarding property and the renunciation of property.48 Schmithals argued, however, that Degenhardt (and Conzelmann and Haenchen) had failed to appreciate the importance of another of Luke's particular redactional interests, persecution.49

Schmithals then suggested that the relationship between these two seemingly unrelated themes (renunciation and persecution) was, in fact, the key to understanding how statements regarding wealth and poverty function in the third gospel and Acts. In regard to persecution, he argued:

Die Strafen fur verfolgte Christen scheinen wiihrend der ganzen Verfolgungszeit dieselben und die iiblichen gewesen zu sein: zunachst die Geldstrafe, die Konfiskation des Vermogens; dann die dazu tretende entscheidend war die LoslOsung und damit das Freisein fur den ungeteilten JUrgerdienst." Degenhardt, Lukas Evangelist der Armen, 217.

47 Non-office holding readers, who according to Degenhardt were second and third generation Gentiles, were to practice an ethic of "Christian love activity," which both fulfilled the Greco-Roman ideal of friendship and the Hebrew ideal ofa community without need (Deut 15:4). See Degenhardt, Lukas Evangelist der Armen, 221-22.

48 Schmithals, "Lukas-Evangelist der Armen," 153-59.

49 Schmithals, "Lukas-Evangelist der Armen," 159-63. Schmithals is, of course, not the only Lukan scholar to suggest that Luke took a particular interest in the persecution of Christian believers. For a history of the scholarship on theme of persecution in Luke and Acts and a defense of that theme's importance in Luke-Acts, see Scott Smith Cunningham, "'Through Many Tribulations:' The Theology of Persecution in Luke-Acts" (Ph.D. diss., Dallas Theological Seminary, 1994). Also see Schuyler Brown, Apostasy and Perseverance in the Theology ofLuke (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1969); John 1. Kilgallen, "Persecution in the Acts of the Apostles," Luke and Acts, ed. Gerald O'Collins and Gilberto Marconi, tr. Matthew J. O'Connell (New York: Paulist Press, 1991), 143-60; and Dennis M. Sweetland, "Discipleship and Persecution," Bib 65 (1984): 61-80. 20 Verbannung aus der Heimat, von Haus und Hof, von Weib und Kind; schlieBlich die Todesstrafe.so Schrnithals surmised that believers and potential believers within the Lukan community were immediately faced with the possible loss of their goods. In light of this threat, Schrnithals argued, "Luke's position toward possessions and renunciation of possessions becomes immediately understandable."sl On the one hand, Luke urged Christians to renounce their possessions if (and only if) their persecutors forced them to choose between apostasy and confiscation of their goods. On the other hand, from those Christians who were not faced with the immediate confiscation of their goods, Luke demanded generosity toward those who had suffered the loss of their possessions for the sake of Christ. Thus, Schrnithals argues, "in the concrete situation of persecution, this contradiction dissolves itself."s2

Thus, Schrnithals was able to offer a consistent reading of issues of wealth and poverty in the third gospel and Acts by positing historical readers with the extratextual experience of persecution or the threat of persecution or both. Readers who were faced with the dreadful choice between renunciation of their possessions or apostasy were to renounce their possessions. Readers who did not face this choice were to practice generosity toward believers who had been forced to renounce their possessions.

The Financially Secure Reader (An Emerging Consensus)

In 1976, the redaction critic Robert 1. Karris argued that the Lukan community contained both the rich and poor, but that Luke's presentation of

50 Schmithals, "Lukas-Evangelist der Armen," 163.

51 Schmithals, "Lukas-Evangelist der Armen," 164.

52 Schmithais, "Lukas-Evangelist der Armen," 164-65. 21 wealth and poverty was primarily addressed to the rich. 53 This understanding of the Lukan readership, which had occasionally been advocated by earlier scholars,s4 became a matter of scholarly consensus only after Karris's work.ss One "lucid, elegantly argued analysis,,,S6 Wolfgang Stegemann's contribution to Jesus and the Hope of the Poor,57 will serve as an example of how this emerging consensus tends to read issues of wealth and poverty in the third gospel and Acts.

Stegemann, like Degenhardt and Schmithals, acknowledged the existence of the "supposed contradictions" within the third gospel and Acts regarding issues

53 "The Lukan Sitz im Leben," 219-33. Essentially the same argument was again presented in Karris's "Poor and Rich: The Lukan Sitz im Leben," Perspectives on Luke-Acts, ed. Charles H. Talbert (Danville: Association of Baptist Professors of Religion, 1978), 112-25.

5' E.g., Henry J. Cadbury, The Making of Luke-Acts (1926; reprint ed., London: SPCK, 1958),260-66; Bammel, "TITwX6S," 6: 885-915; B. E. McCormick, "The Social and Economic Background of Luke" (Ph.D. diss., Oxford, 1960), 206; Martin Hengel, "Christliche Kritik am Reichtum," EvK 6 (1973): 21-25; and Henry Wansbrough, "St. Luke and Christian Ideals in an Affluent Society," New Blackfrairs 49 (1968): 582-87.

SS In 1989, Donahue, "Two Decades," 143, observed "a consensus that Luke is written primarily for the 'rich' in the community described as either the socially more respected or the economically more prosperous." E.g., David L. Mealand's Poverty and Expectation in the Gospels (London: SPCK, 1980), 20, suggested that Luke "wishes to give advice to the rich." Walter E. Pilgrim's Good News to the Poor (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1981), 164, suggested that Luke addressed "rich Christians." Horn's Glaube und Handeln, 119, explained that Luke's "Paranese ist eine Richenparanese." Dennis 1. Ireland's Stewardship and the Kingdom of God (New York: Brill, 1992), 166, suggested that Luke wished "to warn rich people." Also see, Warren Heard, "Luke's Attitude Toward the Rich and Poor," TJ ns 9 (1980): 47-80; Grant R. Osborne, "Luke: Theologian of Social Concern," TJ ns 7 (1978): 135-48; John Gillman, Possessions and the Life of Faith: A Reading of Luke-Acts, Zacchaeus Studies (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1991), especially 24-27; Kyoung-Jin Kim, Stewardship and Almsgiving in Luke's Theology, JSNTSup 155 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998),36-53; and Philip F. Esler, Community and Gospel in Luke-Acts, SNTSMS 57 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), especially 150-65. Cf. Halvor Moxnes, "The Social Context of Luke's Community," 1m 48 (1994): 379-89 and "Patron-Client Relations and the New Community in Luke-Acts," The Social World of Luke-Acts, ed. Jerome H. Neyrey (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1991), 241-68, especially 267.

56 Luke T. Johnson, Review of Jesus and the Hope ofthe Poor, TToday 2 (1987): 302.

57 Luise Schottroff and Wolfgang Stegemann, Jesus and the Hope of the Poor, tr. Matthew J. O'Connell (New York: Orbis, 1986). Although the authors accepted joint responsibility for the work, Stegemann wrote the section dealing with the third gospel and Acts, the section with which this dissertation is concerned. 22 of wealth and poverty. 58 Also, and in keeping with the assumptions of redaction criticism,59 Stegemann discovered that Luke's presentation of issues of wealth and poverty was "directly related to the concrete situation in Luke's own community."60 Stegemann characterized this community clearly, explaining that

Luke has in mind a group that lives as an independent community in a city of the Roman empire (though not in Palestine). It evidently does not have members who belong to the upper class, but neither does it have members among the destitute (beggars, etc.). There are nonetheless serious tensions within the community. These are caused, on the one hand, by economic differences: in addition to rich people there are others who are in need, ordinary folk such as tax collectors, manual workers, and the like. On the other hand, there are also social tensions. Respected and respectable Christians look down on the ordinary folk, especially when the latter have a reputation for engaging in illegal dealings (tax collectors, soldiers).61 Stegemann's reading of wealth and poverty followed Degenhardt's suggestion that Luke distinguished between Jesus' instructions to the disciples and to the people. According to Stegemann, complete renunciation of all possessions is required from the disciples in the third gospel, but the "people" are not called to this ethic. 62 Stegemann differs from Degenhardt's understanding of the "significance" of the disciples' renunciation however. Whereas Degenhardt had argued that "office holders" within Luke's community had assumed the role

58 Stegemann, 68. After acknowledging the presence of these "supposed contradictions," Stegemann insisted that the question of aLukan perspective on issues of wealth and poverty "can be anwered [sic] only if we take Luke and Acts as a single complete work."

59 Stegemann and Schottroff are both well-known advocates of Liberation Theology, but the approach, in Stegemann's section of the book, is redaction critical. As one anonymous reviewer explained, "It should not be thought, however, that this is a polemical work of Liberation Theology" (Review ofJesus and the Hope ofthe Poor, ExpTim 98 [1987]: 321).

60 Stegemann, 120.

61 Stegemann, 116. Hom, Glaube und Handeln, 215-43, especially 243, envisages a similar situation of economic disparity between believers within the "Lukan community."

62 Stegemann, 69-77. 23 (and requirements) of the disciples, Stegemann suggested that such discipleship (and its demand for complete renunciation) is "a phenomenon of the past."63

For Stegemann, the disciples' "poverty is a literary ideal in Luke," which "has the function of a critique of the rich" and which is modeled after Cynic criticisms of the rich. 64 He insists that a

Hellenistic reader would immediately have thought of the wandering Cynic philosophers when he came upon Luke's picture of the lifestyle of the disciples of Jesus .... The entire lifestyle of the disciples of Jesus, as described by Luke, might well be understood as comparable to the utterly modest lifestyle of the CynicS.65 Stegemann argued that the disciples' voluntary poverty functioned like that of Pseudo-Lucian's Cynicus. No one is called to imitate it, but his simple lifestyle nonetheless served to highlight the dangers which the luxurious and self-indulgent lifestyle of the rich presents to the wealthy themselves.66 By describing the disciples' lives in a manner analogous to this Cynic pattern of voluntary poverty, Luke was able to offer "a critique and warning for the rich of his own day" and to present "his uncompromising critique of the rich."67 Luke's criticism of the rich was not entirely negative, however. It was intended to effect repentance on the part of the rich.68

63 Stegemann, 78-79. He acknowledged that this '''historizing' interpretation of the disciples' renunciation is common among interpreters of the third gospeL

64 Stegemann, 80, 83.

65 Stegemann, 85. On the parallels between synoptic traditions and Cynic traditions, also see Gerd Theissen, "Itinerant Radicalism," tr. Annionette Wire, Radical Religion 2 (1975): 84-93 and F. Gerald Downing, "Cynics and Christians," NTS 30 (1984): 584-93 .

.. Stegemann, 86.

61 Stegemann, 86-87. Although none of the other readers in this emerging consensus have emphasized the parallel functions of poverty among the Cynics and Jesus' disciples as extensively as has Stegemann, the other readers arrive at the same conclusion, that the disciples' example of economic sacrifice functions as a challenge for the wealthy to reevaluate their attachment to wealth.

6S Stegemann, 105-06. George W. E. Nickelsburg's "Riches, the Rich, and God's Judgment in I Enoch 92-105 and the Gospel According to Luke," NTS 25 (1979): 324-44, also 24 This repentance was then to be followed by appropriate fruits of repentance: almsgiving to poor persons outside the Christian community and an equalization of property and generous charitable activity within the Christian community.69 Stegemann's distinction between the character of one's benevolent activity inside and outside of the Christian community is rooted in his reading of Luke's "concrete social utopia" (Acts 2:41-47; 4:32-37).70 Stegemann argues that Luke presents an ideal Christian community in which no need exists. This elimination of need was not produced by an "ethic of undifferentiated almsgiving," but rather by an "equal distribution of property" within the Christian community.7l Although this eqUalization of property precludes the possibility of destitute persons within the Christian community, such persons do still exist outside the Christian community.72 Thus, according to Stegemann, Luke continues to accept "the duty of Christians to be argues that the presentation of wealth was designed to produce repentance among its wealthy readers, but Nickelsburg claims that the basis for this call to repentance is rooted in Jewish apocalypticism rather than in Cynic philosophy. Also see George W. E. Nichelsburg, "Revisiting the Rich and the Poor in I Enoch 92-105 and the Gospel according to Luke," SBLSP (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998), 579-605. Thomas E. Schmidt's Hostility to Wealth in the Synoptic Gospels, JSNTSup 15 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987) finds the basis for this call to repentance in the hostility to wealth that (supposedly) characterized the entire religious environment of the Ancient Near East.

69 Stegemann, 106-17. Among the "unpleasant specific actions" to be taken by the prosperous within the Christian community were "risky loans, cancellation of debts, [and] gifts."

70 Stegemann, 117.

71 Stegemann, 117, explains that "Luke has a concrete social goal in view: an equal distribution of property within the community. He is far from offering a political program for a comprehensive redistribution of property throughout society. He does, however, have a program, but it is for the Christian community." In addition to his reading of the "community of goods" pericopes, Stegemann, 107, also finds support for the idea of an equalization of property in the renunciation of half of one's property which he finds in the story of Zacchaeus (Luke 19:1-10) and the sermon of John the Baptist (Luke 3: 10-14). In relation to the Zacchaeus story, he asks: "Why does the chief tax collector renounce precisely half of his goods? .. The principal motif is the concrete social utopia envisaged by Luke, who wants property to be distributed equally among the prosperous and the needy Christians of the community."

72 Stegemann, 119, suggests that Luke "evidently thinks of the equalization in simple arithmetical terms: possessors renounced enough to ensure that there were no longer either rich or needy people in the community." 25 compassionate to the poorest of the poor"--even though they stand outside the Christian community.73

Although Acts recorded the "undermining" and "dissolution" of this ideal society via the actions of "the respectable and prosperous" (Acts 5-6),14 according to Stegemann, Luke regarded the "social utopia" (Acts 2:41-47; 4:32-37) as normative for the Christian community. 75 He explained that

the circumstances described here reflect the situation in the Lucan community and tum this into a picture of what Luke thinks this community should be. The picture of the primitive community thus takes what actually was (as Luke sees it) and uses it to show how things should be.76 Although Stegemann's reading, with its suggestion of a Lukan desire for the equalization of property, places a more narrowly defined demand upon the financially secure reader than do most other critical readings with a similarly constructed reader, 77 it produces a consistent reading of the Lukan texts

73 Stegemann, 110. Schmidt, Hostility to Wealth, 135-62, in contrast to virtually all other critical readers of the third gospel and Acts, insists that the Lukan call to give to the poor was a "self-regarding" call based upon the danger which wealth presented to its possessor. According to Schmidt's reading, compassion for the poor was not a motivating factor in Luke's presentation of issues of wealth and poverty. Schmidt's reading has met with justifiably scathing reviews. See Walter E. Pilgrim, Review of Hostility to Wealth in the Synoptic Gospels, JBL 109 (1990): 142-44 and Howard Clark Kee, Review of Hostility to Wealth in the SynoptiC Gospels, CBQ 51 (1989): 572-74.

74 Stegemann, 118-19.

15 Hom, Glallbe und Handeln, 36-49, 243, also suggested that the summaries of Acts 2:42-47 and 4:32-37 are nonnative for the church in Luke's eyes, but Hom understood these summaries to present a community characterized by love rather a community characterized by the equal distribution of property.

76 Stegemann, 117. This "restorationist" reading of Acts 2 and 4 was common early in the twentieth century. See, for example, Ernest F. Scott, The Beginnings of the Church (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1914), 137-44.

77 Heard's suggestion is more typical of such readings: "It seems best therefore to conclude that there probably was not a formal economic equalization in the early church, nor would Luke's readers have understood it as such. Rather, the early church possessed a free spirit of generosity and a detachment towards wealth that allowed any who were pneumatically 26 in much the same manner as do the other readings with a similarly constructed reader. The fmancially secure readers' extratextual knowledge or experience (knowledge about Cynic traditions in Stegemann's case) is posited within the mind of the financially secure readers. This posited knowledge within historically reified readers then enables these readers to infer that the harsh renunciation ethic given to the original disciples belongs in the past and is not to be literally followed. Yet, in spite of this easing of the renunciation theme, these readers are faced with a strong demand to share their economic resources with those in need.

The Financially Secure God-Fearer (David Peter Seccombe)

Like all of the important interpreters of issues of wealth and poverty in the third gospel and Acts, David Peter Seccombe understands that the "important question" is: "How is it possible to reconcile the existence in Luke-Acts of two apparently contradictory pictures?,,78 In a number of ways, Seccombe's reading of these issues and his answer to the perennial problem of inconsistency within the texts resemble the consensus reading represented by Stegemann. Seccombe agrees with that consensus in his understanding that the third gospel and Acts were addressed "to the rich about the poor,,,79 do not contain "any idealization of poverty,,,80 and reflect a concern that the wealthy use their wealth in order to help relieve the misery of the poor. 51

motivated to part with their possessions and help those in fmancial need." Heard, "Luke's Attitude," 70, emphasis Heard's.

78 Seccombe, Possessions and the Poor, 12.

79 Seccombe, 3.

80 Seccombe, 134, also see 95, 188, 195, 219, and 228.

81 Seccombe, 227-28, 135-96. 27 Seccombe has, however, refined the idea of the financially secure reader in a manner that sets his work apart as "one of the best,,82 studies of wealth and poverty in the third gospel and Acts. Whereas Stegemann envisaged historical readers who stood within the church (a socially and economically divided church, but a church nonetheless), Seccombe envisages historical readers who stand just outside of the church.83 Seccombe's reader is knowledgeable about and attracted to the church and particularly its Jewish heritage, but remains reluctant to commit to the Christian faith. He suggests the likelihood that

Luke was addressing well-to-do hellenistic God-fearers who were attracted to the Christian movement, but hesitant as to whether such a newcomer on the scene could possibly be authentic, and afraid of what might be the cost to them socially and economically if they were to declare themselves publicly and unreservedly for Christ and his church.&4 The familiarity of Seccombe's readers with first century "messianic Judaism,,8s caused them to interpret the references to "the poor" in the early part of the third gospel (1:46-55; 4:16-30; 6:17-49; and 7:22-23) as "a characterization of the nation Israel" in accordance with their understanding of the "poor" in the book ofIsaiah and the Psalms.86 This identification of the "poor" in

82 "Many studies of these questions have appeared lately; this is one of the best." Dale Goldsmith, Review of Possessions and the Poor in Luke-Acts, JBL 104 (1985): 149.

83 Seccombe, 99, 133-34, "drawls] some important clues about Luke's readers from the story of Zacchaeus," explaining that "Luke intended this story as a warning to the well-to-do not to allow wealth to stand in the way of their coming to Jesus." Also see 130-32, 188, and 227.

84 Seccombe, 229, also see 131, 188. Esler's Community and Gospel, 36-45, 164-200, offers a very similar, though less keenly argued, construction of Luke's original readers as God­ fearers. The primary difference between Esler's and Seccombe's readings is Esler's insistence that the third gospel and Acts privilege the poor even while addressing God-fearers. Seccombe does not, as will be shown, accept that the third gospel and Acts privilege the poor.

8S Seccombe, 93-94, admits that his reading "could hardly have been grasped by totally gentile readers, but only by those with sufficient understanding of Jewish eschatological ideas to recognize, [sic] the character of the poetic community."

86 Seccombe, 93, suggests that the equation of Luke's use of the term "poor" with the nation of Israel would have been "simple" for Luke's readers if they were Jewish, gentile God­ fearers, Christians or catechumens. Also see 22-96, especially 24, 43. 28 the early part of the third gospel with the nation of Israel is significant because it enables Seccombe, in contrast to Stegemann, to assert that the third gospel's interest in the "poor" serves to reinforce Luke's eschatological concern to demonstrate that the salvific hopes of Israel have been fulfilled. s7 As an additional consequence, Seccombe is able to deny that the literal poor are granted privileged status in the third gospel and Acts.s8

Having deprivileged the poor by drawing upon a store of extratextual data, Seccombe is ready to address the problem of renunciation in the third gospel. He argues that the third gospel's calls for renunciation are not calls for a general renunciation on the part of all Christians, but rather they each address a specific situation within the Christian life. 89 He argues that these calls demonstrate the importance of being willing to suffer the loss of all for Christ (14:25-35) and the importance of not allowing one's possessions to prevent one's entry into the kingdom (18:18-30 and 19:1-10).90 He emphasizes that these calls deal with the importance of

87 Seccombe, 45-96. A number of other studies have suggested that various themes within the third gospel (with seeming economic implications) serve to promote Luke's eschatology. For example, Gary T. Meadors's "The Poor in Luke's Gospel" (Th.D. diss., Grace Theological Seminary, 1983) argued that Luke's use of the term "poor" served Lukan eschatology (although Meadors did not argue for the identification of the "poor" and Israel); Robert B. Sloan's The Favorable Year of the Lord (Austin: Schola, 1977) argued that the jubilee theme in the third gospel served Lukan eschatology; and John O. York's The Last Shall Be First: The Rhetoric of Reversal in Luke, JSNTSup 46 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991) argued that the reversal of fortunes theme within the third gospel served Lukan eschatology. None of these studies has, however, offered a reading of issues of wealth and poverty within the total context of the third gospel and Acts.

88 Seccombe, 95. Seccombe admits that the remaining references to the poor in the third gospel (14:13,21; 18:22; 19:8; and 21:2-3) are economic descriptions, but he insists that they do not privilege the poor. The poor are, however, proper recipients of Christian compassion.

89 Seccombe, 99, opts for a '''situational' approach" to these accounts.

90 Seccombe, 132, explains that the stories of the ruler (18:18-30) and Zacchaeus (19:1- 10) should "be treated as paradigms of response. Bound up in their response to Jesus is the manner in which each meets with the offer of the Kingdom. The ruler meets it as demand and departs sorrowful; Zacchaeus meets it as gracious acceptance, and in his joy resolves to give half his possessions to the poor and to make fourfold restitution. The surprising thing is that no 29 a person laying hold of the Kingdom when it comes within his reach. Neither of these passages yields anything specific about the Christian's ongoing use of possessions ...91 Having suggested that the calls for renunciation in the third gospel apply primarily (but not literally) to those entering the Christian life, Seccombe turned his attention to those Lukan passages which speak to the Christian's ongoing use of possessions. Although Seccombe's analysis is detailed (and often insightful), it is not especially novel and may, therefore, be briefly summarized. Seccombe argues that Luke views possessions as having little intrinsic value in comparison to the riches of the Kingdom and that Luke, therefore, encourages his readers to use their possessions in a manner consistent with their confession of a final just judgment. In practical terms, Luke urges his readers to avoid the needless stockpiling of possessions and to give generously to the poor in society. In spite of the diminished value placed on possessions, Luke does not, according to Seccombe, idealize poverty. Rather, Luke envisages Christians retaining possession of their resources, but using them to alleviate the hardships which poverty brings upon other people.92

Seccombe summarizes his findings quite clearly, asserting that we are now able to affirm with confidence that Luke displays a consistency of outlook in his employment of poor-possessions material. We have found nothing ascetic in Luke-Acts ... Far from counselling a withdrawal from the world and its wealth, Luke demands positive engagement: money is to be used positively to good effect in accordance with the values of the Kingdom. . . . The appearance of contradiction is due on the one hand to our unfamiliarity with Jewish and hellenistic thought forms, and on the other to an over readiness to make

attempt is made to match the sacrifice demanded of the ruler. Renunciation, therefore, is not the issue." Also see 133-34. For a similar reading, see Peter Liu, "Did the Lucan Jesus Desire Voluntary Poverty of his Followers," EvQ 64 (1992): 291-317.

9, Seccombe, 134, emphasis Seccombe's.

92 Seccombe, 135-222. 30 direct ethical applications of materials which Luke presents in such a way as to demand a more subtle and thoughtful application.93 Thus, by positing a God-fearer (or a similar person) as Luke's historical reader, Seccombe was able to bring consistency to the texts by minimizing the impact of the texts which seemingly privilege the poor or call for renunciation or both. The readers' extratextual knowledge about Messianic Judaism enables them to interpret Luke's apparent concern for the poor as a concern for the nation of Israel. Their extratextual experience as those who were hesitant to commit openly to the Christian faith enables them to discern that Luke's apparent sympathy for the ideal of renunciation is actually a call to accept the ideal of "limitless discipleship." Yet these readers, like Stegemann's readers, do find a strong call to employ their resources to promote the values of their Christian faith.

The Residential Reader (John Koenig)

Although redaction critical approaches, like those just considered, have dominated post-war Lukan scholarship, in the last decade a number of critical readers have attempted to enhance their understanding of the third gospel and Acts by incorporating the tools and insights of social-scientific analysis into their reading strategies. These studies have, however, tended either to be focused on a single socio-economic concept, practice or institution within the third gospel and Acts (thus minimizing the significance of our question about the diversity of views within the texts)94 or else to be insufficiently versed in social scientific

9) Seccombe, 228.

94 E.g., Halvor Moxnes, The Economy of the Kingdom: Social Conflict and Economic Relations in Luke's Gospel, OBT (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988). "The reader who expects a full­ scale treatment of economic relationships within the Gospel of Luke will be disappointed. Moxnes has addressed those relationships only as they form a backdrop for his focus upon Luke's characterization of the Pharisees." Steven Sheeley, Review of The Economy of the Kingdom, BA 53 (Sept. 1990): 179. 31 theories and approaches. 95 John Koenig's recent reading of the whole of the third gospel and Acts is, however, an exception to these tendencies--even if his social scientific analysis is largely borrowed from others.96

Koenig begins by surveying the third gospel and Acts in order to demonstrate the prominence of the theme of hospitality.97 Koenig observes that the traditions which Luke preserves about giving and receiving seem to assume two different audiences. On the one hand, Koenig suggests that many of Luke's traditions reflect the ethos of

'wandering charismatics,' that is, early missionary prophets who followed Jesus' itinerant life style quite literally and with great rigor. For these prophets, only someone who had renounced all things-home, family and possessions--could claim to be a true disciple of Jesus.98 He then explains that the Lukan traditions which contain harsh economic demands originated as "a kind of propaganda literature" for these wandering prophets.99 Yet on the other hand, Koenig acknowledges that many other Lukan traditions reflect the less harsh ethic of "residential disciples" who enjoy the

9S E.g., Esler's Community and Gospel. "The social science models never interface, either to generate new insights or to confirm one another; they are welcome new perspectives, but they remain tools not comfortably mastered." Jerome H. Neyrey, Review of Community and Gospel in Luke-Acts, CEQ 52 (1990): 745.

% John Koenig, New Testament Hospitality, OBT (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985),85-123, draws heavily from Gerd Theissen's two works "Itinerant Radicalism" and Sociology of Early Palestinian Christianity, tr. John Bowden (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978). Koenig also draws heavily from Richard J. Dillon's From Eye-Witnesses to Ministers of the Word, AnBib (Rome: Biblicallnstitute, 1978).

97 Koenig, 86-91. Interest in the theme of hospitality in the third gospel and Acts can be traced back to Donald Wayne Riddle's "Early Christian Hospitality: A Factor in Gospel Transmission," JEL 57 (1938): 141-54. The most recent discussion is Sarah Henrich's "Godfearing in Acts 10: The Changing Rules of Hospitality in Early Christianity" (Ph.D. diss., Yale University, 1994). Also see Demetrius R. Dumm, "Luke 24:44-49 and Hospitality," Sin, Salvation and the Spirit, ed. Daniel Durkin (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1977), 231-39.

98 Koenig, 93-94.

99 Koenig, 94. 32 pleasures of family and home life without enduring the rigor of complete renunciation. 100

By recognizing the existence of two apparently conflicting sets of economic ideals within the third gospel and Acts, Koenig has again drawn attention to the central problem for Lukan interpreters of issues of wealth and poverty, that is, the diversity of views within the texts. IOI As with the earlier redaction critics, Koenig constructs historical readers who create consistency out of the texts' competing demands. He argues that "Luke makes a special effort to address residential believers,,,102 who we also learn, are "well-to-do members of the Christian communities to which Luke writes.,,103

Koenig's readers take Jesus and Paul as their "primary models" of those who proclaim the gospeL 104 Koenig finds the life style of the wandering prophets (and the continued value of that life style) affirmed by Luke's depiction of JesuslOS and the life style of the residential leaders (and the continued value of that life style) affirmed by Luke's depiction of Paul. 106 As Koenig reads the third gospel

100 Koenig, 95-103. Gabriel Perez's "Lucas, Evangelio de Exigencias Radicales," Servidor de la Palabra (Salamanca: Editorial San Esteban, 1979), 319-67, also emphasizes the importance of distinguishing between the demands which Luke makes of those who travel and those who do not. He suggests that the "reader's circumstances" detennine whether the gospel's demand for renunciation is to be taken literally or not.

101 See especially, Koenig, 95.

102 Koenig, 103, also see 98-102,105,107,109, II I, and 119.

103 Koenig, 101.

104 Koenig, 85.

lOS Koenig, 91-94, 103. Koenig, 94, even speculates that Luke "spent some time" with such wandering prophets.

106 "If the residential readers of Luke-Acts have tended to think of the martyred Paul and his associate Barnabas as professional wanderers, exalted figures quite different from themselves and far removed from their own domestic concerns (a knowledge of Paul's letters among these readers is not presupposed), then our author is out to change that understanding. Indeed, Luke attempts nothing less than the residentialization of the great traveler Paul, and he does this in order to help his readers see themselves as legitimate heirs of the heroic apostle." Koenig, 98-99, also see 99-101. 33 and Acts, Luke values both the fully renouncing itinerant and the non-renouncing residential life styles equally. To Koenig's eyes, "Luke appears to be sketching out a future for the church in which all parties can playa vital role.,,107

Thus, as Koenig understands Luke's message to his "target audience" of residential Christians, the goal is neither to urge these residential Christians to adopt the ethos of the wandering prophets108 nor to suggest that the mission of the "wandering prophets" has become passe or historically displaced. 109 Rather, according to Koenig, Luke wants the residential Christians to create a "partnership with the wandering prophets."IIO Luke is

... at work instructing his target audience of residential believers in the privileges and responsibilities that they are to share with their traveling colleagues. II I Thus, according to Koenig's reading, residential disciples are called to two tasks with economic implications. First, they are to accept the validity of the itinerants' prophetic ministry and to support that ministry by providing the itinerants with the level of hospitality accorded to equals. II2 Second, residential

107 Koenig, 98.

lOS "Residential believers are not asked to impoverish themselves." Koenig, 101.

109 Koenig, 98, rejects the suggestion, which he credits to Gerd Theissen, "that the wandering prophets have served their purpose magnificently (the Third Gospel), but that now, in the closing decades of the first century, resident prophets must take up the mantle of leadership and become the church's prime authorities (Acts)."

110 Koenig, 98.

111 Koenig, 100. Although he repeatedly insists that Luke was addressing residential believers, Koenig, 98, does note that "[t]o the degree that Luke addresses the strict itinerants or their supporters per se, he is asking them to become more residential than they have been, to lend their talents more humbly and graciously to local communities, and to share leadership in missionary ventures with believers in households and families, who cannot travel great distances to proclaim the gospel."

112 Koenig, 100-03. Koenig, 102, suggests, on the basis ofa dubious reading of Luke 17:7-10, that the itinerants had a reputation for making claims of superiority. For Luke, however, "neither group can claim superiority over the other." 34 believers are to participate in the mission of the house churches by "generous disposition of their material goods" (particularly food).113 This generosity toward both believers and nonbelievers (and the joy which it produces) becomes the primary means by which the message of the gospel is communicated to nonbelievers. 114 Koenig summarizes the effect which the texts were to have on their readers, explaining that, according to the third gospel and Acts,

local churches must function as (a) banquet communities which attract their nonbelieving neighbors and (b) home bases for missionaries who travel .. . JlS Koenig was therefore able to create a consistent reading of economic issues within the third gospel and Acts by positing readers engaged in a set of extratextual social dynamics. In light of their extratextual knowledge about the existence of "wandering prophets" and their extratextual experience of a struggle for leadership against these itinerants, Koenig's readers are able to read Luke's renunciation themes as an endorsement of the itinerants' ministry and his less stringent themes as an endorsement of their own residential ministry. Koenig's readers then discern a call both to support the itinerants' ministry and to enhance their residential ministries by generous use of their possessions.

Possessions as Symbolic of One's Person (Luke Johnson)

Luke Timothy Johnson was an early and outspoken critic of redaction- critical reading strategies like those surveyed earlier. He broke with the redaction-critical reading strategy at two points. '16 First, his reading did not

113 Koenig, Ill.

114 "Above all, Luke wants his special target audience of residential believers to understand that both the quality of their life together and the ways in which they reach out to make contact with their nonbelieving neighbors will prove crucial to the continued success of this mission." Koenig, II\,

115 Koenig, 119.

116 See "On Finding the Lukan Community," 87-100. 35 privilege materials or features which supposedly were indicative of Luke's redactional activity. Johnson saw little value in isolating Luke's redactional material because he insisted that Luke "was more than a collector and collator of sources, [Luke) was in fact an author in the fullest sense." 117 Second, Johnson took no interest in reconstructing the "Lukan community" or in reifying Luke's original readers. Although Johnson made these important breaks with the reading strategy of the redaction critics, he did concur with their consensus judgment that the diversity of views within the texts presented readers with their most difficult interpretive problem. I IS Johnson took "the frequently noted inconsistencies in the narrative [Luke­ Acts)," particularly the inconsistency between the ideal of the "community of goods" in Acts 4:32 and the ideal of almsgiving elsewhere in the third gospel and Acts, as a point of departure, noting "a possible conflict of ideology.,,119 Johnson's approach to solving this inconsistency problem was "resolutely literary in character." 120 He proposed to employ a reading strategy which read the third gospel and Acts as "story,,,121 explaining that we must seek to place a passage precisely within the dramatic flow of the narrative, recognizing that there is in all probability a good literary reason

117 Luke Timothy Johnson, The Literary Function of Possessions in Luke-Acts, SBLDS 39 (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1977), 13-14.

118 Johnson, Literary Function, 129-30, asked the rhetorical question: "If Luke wants to present an ideal for his community to follow, which ideal emerges as his own: the one in which missionaries travel with nothing at all? the one in which the missionary supports himself by his labor? the one in which leaders of communities likewise work to supply the needs ofthose poorer than they? or the one in which the leaders, like the Apostles in Jerusalem, preside over a community of goods?" He concluded: "The problem we face is that although Luke consistently talks about possessions, he does not talk about possessions consistently."

119 Johnson, Literary Function, 10.

120 Johnson, Literary Function, 25.

121 Johnson, Literary Function, 21-24, especially 21. 36 for the passage occurring in this place and none other, and that the author has offered us in the story itself the possibility of grasping that reason. 122

Johnson first concerned himself with understanding the dramatic flow of the narrative, suggesting that the narrative of the third gospel and Acts "progresses by means of the dynamic of acceptance and rejection by the people of the Men of the Spirit," that is, "as the story of 'the Prophet and the People. ",123 In the third gospel the dynamic of acceptance and rejection is played out as the people respond to the prophet Jesus and in Acts this dynamic is played out as the people respond to the apostles who assume Jesus' prophetic role. 124 Johnson, rather immodestly, claimed: This pattern [of the Prophet and the People] is not one which was imposed from the beginning on the text by an alien theological, historical or even literary preconception, but is one which emerged from the text itself.... It does not run counter to, but rather is the very mainspring of the story, that which gives the story both coherence and color. 125

Having established, to his satisfaction, the pattern which structures the dramatic flow of the narrative, Johnson turned his attention to the "distinct literary function played by the motif of possessions within that literary pattern.,,126 He argues that Luke's use of the motif of possessions serves a symbolic function, to illustrate and reinforce his literary pattern of the Prophet and the People. Johnson argued that "Luke sees the way a man handles possessions as an

122 Johnson, Literary Function, 25.

123 Johnson, Literary Function, 78. For a history of scholarship concerning the "Jesus-as­ prophet" motif in the third gospel and Acts, see Brigid Curtin Frein, "The Literary Significance of the Jesus-as-prophet Motif in the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles" (Ph.D. diss., Saint Louis University, 1989),62-72. Frein, 69-71, criticizes Johnson for reading all of the third gospel and Acts through the lens of Acts 3:22.

124 See especially, Johnson, Literary Function, 77-78, 121-26.

125 Johnson, Literary Function, 121. On the immodest nature of this assertion, see David L. Tiede, Review of The Literary Function ofPosseSSions in Luke-Acts, JEL 98 (1979): 446.

126 Johnson, Literary Function, 125, also see 130-31. 37 indication, a symbol, of his interior disposition.,,127 Within the third gospel and Acts, Johnson suggested, one's use of possessions reveals the inner response of that one's heart toward God's visitation and authority as expressed in Christ and his apostles. 128 Having laid all the necessary foundations, Johnson was then able to return to his point of departure, the "community of goods," and explain: we have already leamed that the disposition of possessions is a direct symbol of the disposition of the self. This is the meaning of having all things in common as an expression of spiritual unity. When the believers lay their possessions at the Apostles' feet, therefore, they were symbolically laying themselves there, in a gesture of submission to the authority of the Twelve. 129

In his conclusion, Johnson restated the two primary theses which have directed his work. The theses: a literary analysis of Luke-Acts at the level of story reveals a dominant dramatic pattern which structures the work as a whole; we have called this pattern the story of the Prophet and the People. Within the telling of that story, Luke uses the language of possessions symbolically.130

Although Johnson's symbolic reading strategy has been adopted and adapted by other readers, Johnson himselftums out to be a very selective "story" reader. He has, symbolically speaking (of course), walked out in the middle of the story. Acts 9-28, including all of Paul's ministry, gets scant attention, four

121 Johnson, Literary Function, 148. Johnson is, however, careful to acknowledge that this literary and symbolic function did not exhaust the significance of the motif of possessions for either Luke or his readers (see 129,220-21).

128 Johnson, Literary Function, 170.

129 Johnson, Literary Function, 202, emphasis Johnson's.

130 Johnson, Literary Function, 220-21. He elaborates: "Luke sees possessions as a primary symbol of human existence, an immediate exteriorization of and manifestation of the self." 38 pages early in the dissertation. 13I Paul's activity comes up On two other occasions, one analyzing Luke's "puzzling" and "strange" treatment of the collection for Jerusalem132 and a second including Paul among the "Men of the Spirit. ,,133 The problem, of course, is that Paul's use of possessions simply does not fit into Johnson's pattern. 134 If Paul is one of the "Men of the Spirit" in Acts, then why does he refuse to accept gifts from those who accept his prophetic message (Acts 20:33-35)?135 Further, do Paul's offerings to the temple (Acts 24: 17) reveal his symbolic submission to the authority of the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem? These and other questions illustrate that Johnson has provided a consistent reading of the third gospel and Acts only by providing a truncated reading in which the last half of Acts (i.e., Paul's life and ministry) is simply ignored.

Possessions as Symbolic of Commitment to Social Structures (Kraybill and Sweetland)

In an often overlooked and consistently underappreciated article, Donald B. Kraybill and Dennis M. Sweetland applied themselves to the "nagging enigma" of the "apparent incongruence" of the economic demands made within the third gospel and Acts. 136 Drawing upon Victor Turner's conception of "structure" and

131 Johnson, Literary Function, 29-32.

132 Johnson, Literary Function, 32-36, especially 32, 36. At this point, Johnson is primarily addressing the questions of historicity which he earlier claimed to bracket out of his investigation.

133 Johnson, Literary Function, 53-60.

134 On Johnson's failure to deal adequately with Paul in Acts, see Robert J. Karris, Review of The Literary Function ofPossessions in Luke-Acts, CBQ 41 (1979): 654.

135 Johnson, in spite of previous claims to complete disinterest in issues of historicity, suggested that Luke has merely followed the portrayal which Paul himself gives of his economic relations with his converts. See Literary Function, 25, 32.

136 "Possessions in Luke-Acts: A Sociological Perspective," PRS (1983): 215-39. 39 "anti-structure" for theoretical orientation, KraybiU and Sweetland argue that Luke provides a "sociologically plausible model" of the development of the Jesus movement (the third gospel) and the early church (Acts) and that an understanding of this development provides the framework for understanding the symbolic functions of possessions in the third gospel and Acts. They begin by explaining: In sociological perspective, Luke's Gospel reflects the early stage of a social movement exhibiting a low level of internal organization ... The radical itinerants are . . . betwixt and between the old structure of Judaism and their dream of a new community. They have left their niches in the old system but the movement they have joined lacks its own identity and structure. With the death of Jesus the movement 'settles down' in Acts and begins the long process of institutionalization. A hierarchy of leadership emerges along with functional specialization and structural differentiation. The shift from the Gospel to Acts is a step down the road toward structure ... 137

The importance of this "shift" toward structure after the death of Jesus becomes apparent as Kraybill and Sweetland begin their analysis of possessions in the third gospel and Acts. First, they argue that in the "Jesus Movement" (the third gospel) the terms "rich" and "poor" symbolize "structure" (a differentiated and hierarchical social system) and "anti-structure" (the absence of such a system) respectively.138 On the one hand, they explain that 'rich' in Luke's Gospel is conveniently used as a root metaphor or key symbol to refer to the old social structure of hierarchical positions from which the Jesus Movement was seeking to disengage itself. 139

On the other hand, they explain:

137 Kraybill and Sweetland, 227.

I3S KraybiU and Sweetland, 232.

139 Kraybill and Sweetland, 233. 40 The term poor is used consistently with other cognate social categories all of which express a liminal state either between, below or outside the formal social structures [that is, a state of anti-structure ].140

According to Kraybill and Sweetland, the categories of "rich" and "poor" were important symbols which indicated one's relationship to the new community being brought into existence by Jesus. The "rich" stood within the existing social structures in opposition to the new community being created by Jesus; the "poor" stood outside of the existing structures in expectation of a new community. Yet in Acts, Kraybill and Sweetland were struck by the "sudden disappearance" of the terms "rich" and "poor.,,141 They attribute this demise of rich/poor language to a development within Luke's portrayal of early Christianity. In the early chapters of Acts, the Jerusalem church has moved into "the second stage of a social movement.,,142 At this point the "maturing group" was developing its own "emergent structure," and the previous identification of disciples with anti-structure and opponents with structure was no longer appropriate. 143 They explain: We should not be surprised to fmd beliefs about possessions and the social role of possessions shifting between the Gospel and Acts since they reflect different stages of organizational development. . .. we discover that the beliefs about possessions and their social function in the Gospel signify separation from the old structures while in Acts they symbolize reaggregation to the newly emerging StruCture. 144

140 Kraybill and Sweetland, 233.

141 Kraybill and Sweetland, 234.

142 Kraybill and Sweetland, 235.

143 "Thus, since it is no longer urgent to accentuate separation from the old structure, because members of the Jesus Movement are losing liminal status and are becoming economically interdependent, the terms rich and poor have lost their cognitive and social potency." Kraybill and Sweetland, 235.

144 Kraybill and Sweetland, 236, emphasis theirs. Similarly, KraybiJI and Sweetland, 237, explain: "In the Gospel, possessions were something to leave behind and rid oneself of, but in Acts they are brought along to the community of faith. Instead of being a sign of the disciple's separation from the old order, they are now a symbol of his or her commitment to the new structure .... Instead of symbolizing separation from the old structure as was the case in the 41

For Kraybill and Sweetland, then, the use of possessions in the third gospel and Acts symbolizes one's relationship to existing social structures. Before the development of a unified church structure, the self­ impoverishment of Jesus' disciples symbolized their separation from existing social structures. When a unified church structure emerged after Jesus' death, the believers' voluntary contributions symbolized their commitment to that emergent structure. This reading is clear and sociologically plausible, but is, like Johnson's, truncated. 145 Would Paul's offerings to the temple symbolize his commitment to that structure (Acts 24:17)? Would Paul's refusal to accept gifts from his converts symbolize his unwillingness to accept their "allegiance and commitment?"146 Although Kraybill's and Sweetland's reading brings some new tools to the task of reading the third gospel and Acts, it ultimately creates consistency only by chopping off the end of the story.

Conclusion

After initially brushing aside one popular, though utterly implausible, reading of issues of wealth and poverty in the third gospel and Acts, this brief survey of recent critical scholarship has presented seven different readings of these issues. Although each reading offers a different set of explanations by which to create consistency out of the specific details within the text, all of the readings employ one of two general reading strategies in order to overcome this

Gospel, possessions now signify an individual's investment and integration into the new emergent group structure."

145 Kraybill and Sweetland, 216, acknowledge the truncated nature of their reading, explaining, "we will limit our study in Acts to the Jerusalem church. The expansion of the church to the Hellenistic world represents a later stage in the development of the Christian church and calls for yet a different understanding of possessions which is beyond the scope of this study."

146 KraybilJ and Sweetland, 238, suggest that gifts in Acts are a "sign of one's allegiance and commitment to the group." 42 diversity. On the one hand, advocates of the redaction-critical reading strategy (Degenhardt, Schrnithals, Stegemann, Seccombe and Koenig) tend to reify a historical reader whose extratextual historical circumstances (e.g., legal, economic, residential or religious status) are employed as an interpretive tool for use in the reader's consistency-building. On the other hand, advocates of the symbolic reading strategy (Johnson, and Kraybill and Sweetland) tend to posit a symbolic function for possessions which serves as a consistency-building device for the reader. Each of these reading strategies has serious weaknesses to consider. In regard to the redaction-critical reading strategy, for example, one may ask, what if those specific extratextual conditions did not exist within the Lukan community? What if there was no threat of persecution? What if the original readers were not financially secure, or God-fearers, or "office holders" or residential leaders? Or even more basically, what if there was no "Lukan community?" Or in regard to the symbolic reading strategy, one could ask why the Pauline ministry in Acts does not fit into the pattern of symbolism found within the rest of the narratives. This is to say, the redaction-critical readings posit a questionable external frame of reference in order to build consistency, and the symbolic readings posit a questionable internal frame of reference in order to build consistency. In other words, in the categories to be introduced in the following chapter, the redaction-critical readings fuil to adhere to the repertoire of the text as they create an external frame of reference for consistency-building, and the symbolic readings fail to adhere to the strategies of the text as they create an internal frame of reference for consistency-building. Although each of these critical reading strategies does, in spite of its weaknesses, remain useful, there remains room for the implementation of a different reading strategy, a strategy which seeks to adhere more closely to the external and internal frames of reference within the text. It is the purpose of 43 this dissertation to present and implement just such a reading strategy by drawing upon the theories of Wolfgang Iser.

CHAPTER II

APPROPRIATING READER-RESPONSE THEORY

Introduction

Over the last fifteen years or so (particularly since the publication of Alan Culpepper's Anatomy of the Fourth Gosper), it has become fashionable within some circles of biblical scholarship to practice "modem literary criticism.,,2 Unfortunately, many of these broadly ranging studies have proceeded without any clearly elucidated bases in literary theories and methods.3 In an attempt to avoid the appearance of such theoretical and methodological ambiguity, this dissertation will now give its attention to the theoretical foundations of reader­ response criticism.

This study's interest in reader-response criticism is, of course, not novel within biblical scholarship. In fact, in the early and mid 1980s, biblical scholarship witnessed what Stephen Moore called a "carnival" of reader-response

1 R. Alan Culpepper, Anatomy ofthe Fourth Gospel (philadelphia: Fortress, 1983).

2 In order to gain an appreciation for the degree of biblical scholarship's fascination with the methods of non-biblical literary scholarship, see Mark Allan Powell's mammoth The Bible and Modern Literary Criticism: A Critical Assessment and Annotated Bibliography (New York: Greenwood Press, 1992). Also see Mark Minor, Literary-Critical Approaches to the Bible: An Annotated Bibliography (West Cornwall: Locust Hill Press, 1992).

3 Stephen D. Moore's Literary Criticism and the Gospels: The Theoretical Challenge (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989) provides the best introduction to and critical analysis of the history of "literary criticism" as applied to the New Testament. 46 criticism, a carnival which he suggests "has now largely packed up and left.'>! What initially seemed like reader-response criticism's positive reception among biblical scholars was, however, probably due to factors other than a clear understanding of the strengths (and weaknesses) of the literary theory behind reader-response criticism. Rather, biblical scholars' interest in reader-response criticism was largely based upon an intuitive sense that "common sense dictates that it is the interaction of text and reader which effects the realization of the text"S and upon a mistaken notion that reader-response criticism's interest in the reader is synonymous with redaction criticism's interest in the community of readers to whom the individual gospels were addressed.6

Whatever the reasons were for biblical scholarship'S temporary infatuation with reader-response criticism, that infatuation is now clearly on the wane. Stanley Porter offers five reasons why reader-response criticism has not "caught on" among biblical scholars. First, he suggests that those who have engaged in reader-response criticism have failed to provide clear definitions of their methods

4 Stephen D. Moore, "Stories of Reading," SBLSP, ed. Kent Harold Richards (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988), 141. Moore, "Stories of Reading," 141-43. 2-3, provides the most complete bibliography of reader-response criticism's inroads into biblical scholarship, but also see Stanley Porter, "Why Hasn't Reader-Response Criticism Caught on in New Testament Studies?" JLT 4 (1990): 278-92 and Mark Allan Powell, "Types of Readers and Their Relevance for Biblical Hermeneutics," TSR 12 (1990): 67-76. In addition to the works cited in those bibliographies, also see William S. KUrz, Reading Luke-Acts (Louisville: Westminster, 1993); Bruce J. Malina, "Reading Theory Perspective: Reading Luke-Acts," The Social World ofLuke-Acts, ed. Jerome H. Neyrey (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1991), 3-23; Joseph B. Tyson, Images of Judaism in Luke-Acts (University of South Carolina Press, 1992); "Jews and Judaism in Luke-Acts," NTS 41 (1995): 15- 38; Philip B. Hamer, Relational AnalYSis of the Fourth Gospel: A Study in Reader-Response Criticism (LeWiston: Mellen, 1993); and Robert C. Tannehill, '''Cornelius' and 'Tabitha' Encounter Luke's Jesus," Int 48 (1994): 347-56.

S Fred Craddock, "The Gospels as Literature," Int 49 (I 988): 24, emphasis added. Similarly, Willem S. Vorster's "Readings, Readers and the Succession Narrative," ZAW 98 (1986): 353, asserts: "Quite obviously ... it is clear that in any communication, also in the case of written texts, there is an interaction between sender, message and receiver" (emphasis added).

6 E.g., Anthony C. Thiselton, "Reader-Response Hermeneutics, Action Models, and the Parables of Jesus," The Responsibility of HermenelltiCS, ed. Roger Lundin (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988),79-126. 47 and goals.7 Second, Porter detects a lingering concern for matters of historicity among biblical critics, a concern which is alien to non-biblical literary theorists.8 Third, Porter discovers a failure on the part of many biblical critics to come to grips with the incompatibility between their formalist assumptions and the full implementation of reader-response criticism.9 Fourth, he suggests that reader-response critics have lacked a cohesive structure within the guild by which to promote this reading strategy. Finally, Porter suggests that the "short attention span" of scholarship has contributed to the demise of reader-response criticism.!O In light of all of these factors, Porter concludes that "[t]he way the climate is now, the chances of reader-response criticism coming into its own in New Testament studies are diminishing."!!

If there is any hope of resurrecting the Lazarus of reader-response criticism within New Testament studies, it would seem that a close and critical reexamination of reader-response criticism and its theoretical bases is in order.

In her introduction to reader-response criticism, Susan R. Suleiman insists that reader-response criticism is not one narrowly defined reading strategy, but

7 Porter, "Why Hasn't Reader-Response Criticism Caught On?" 278-83. This criticism is clearly justified. Fred Craddock's "Gospels as Literature," for example, extends the definition of reader-response criticism so far that he equates it with "literary criticism."

8 Porter, "Why Hasn't Reader-Response Criticism Caught On?" 283-85. Even a cursory survey of the "reader-oriented" critics discussed in Powell's "Types of Readers" will reveal the accuracy of Porter's detective work.

9 Porter, "Why Hasn't Reader-Response Criticism Caught On?" 285-89. Biblical scholarship's tendency toward formalism may be due (in part) to a desire to reduce the level of perceived subjectivity involved in interpreting the biblical texts. This desire to eliminate the perception of SUbjectivity is, in many cases, motivated by scholars' religious concerns, particularly their desire to derive normative theological assertions from the text. See, for example, H. J. B. Combrink, "Readings, Readers and the Authors: An Orientation," Neat 22 (1988): 189-203, especially 198-99.

10 Porter, "Why Hasn't Reader-Response Criticism Caught On?" 289-90.

II Porter, "Why Hasn't Reader-Response Criticism Caught On?" 290. Similarly, Moore, "Stories of Reading," 141-59. 48 rather a host of overlapping, complementary, and sometimes contradictory strategiesY Her point is affirmed by Jane P. Tompkins, who finds only one unifYing assumption among reader-response critics. Tompkins explains that

although theorists of reader-oriented criticism disagree on many issues, they are united in one thing: their opposition to the belief that meaning inheres completely and exclusively in the literary text. 13 Beyond this one assumption, that is, that "meaning" is not a Platonic "something" which exists within texts independent of a reader's activity, there is little which unifies reader-response critics. Thus, rather than attempting to construct a vague theory of reader-response criticism haphazardly culled from competing theorists, this dissertation will present the critical theory of one prominent reader-response critic, Wolfgang Iser.14 Iser's discussion of reader­ response criticism serves as a useful starting point for reexamining reader­ response criticism for three reasons. First, Iser is an acknowledged leader among reader-response theorists. IS Second, Iser has provided an adequate basis for developing a full-orbed understanding of reader-response criticism by

12 Susan R. Suleiman, "Introduction: Varieties of Audience-Oriented Criticism," The Reader in the Text, ed. lnge Crosman (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1980), 6.

13 Jane P. Tompkins, "The Reader in History: The Changing Shape of Literary Response," Reader-Response Criticism (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1980),201. Also see Schuyler Brown, "Reader Response," NTS 34 (1988): 232. In an article designed for New Testament scholars, he defends the proposition that "meaning exists formally only in human beings, meaning is generated by a reader reading a text.. .. apart from a reader and a reading, a text is simply ink on paper."

14 In order to discern where Iser's theory stands in relation to other reader-oriented reading strategies, see Susan R. Suleiman, "Introduction: Varieties of Audience-Oriented Criticism," 3-45 and Jane P. Tompkins, "An Introduction to Reader-Response Criticism," Reader­ Response Criticism, ix-xxvi. For complete bibliographies, see Inge Crosman, Annotated Bibliography ofAudience-Oriented Criticism, ed. Robert Polzin and Eugene Rothman (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1982), 401-24 and Tompkins, Reader-Response Criticism, 233-72.

IS See, for example, Stanley Fish, "Why No One's Afraid of Wolfgang Iser," Doing What Comes Naturally (Durham: Duke University Press, 1989),68-86; Elizabeth Freund, The Return of the Reader: Reader-Response Criticism (New York: Methuen Press, 1987), 134; and Samuel Weber, "Caught in the Act of Reading," Demarcating the Disciplines (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1986), 181. 49 presenting and defending his theory in numerous books and articles. 16 Third, Iser's theory was been particularly influential among biblical scholars. 17

This chapter will (1) present Iser's theory, (2) offer some further reflections upon his theory in light of the major criticisms which have been directed toward it, and (3) make a critical appropriation of that theory for methodological purposes.

Wolfgang Iser's Literary Theory

The overarching goal of Wolfgang Iser's reader-response criticism is to create a theory which will "permit assessment and evaluation of actual readers' responses to a literary text.,,18 Iser never claims to devise a "method" of reader­ response criticism. 19 In fact, he acknowledges that his presentation of literary theory is highly "abstract" and will require adaptation when applied to concrete

16 The articles which most clearly enunciate Iser's literary theory have been reprinted many times. The printings of the texts to which I will refer are: "The Reading Process: A Phenomenological Approach," The Implied Reader (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1974),274-94; "Talk Like Whales: A Response to Stanley Fish," Diacritics 11 (1981): 82-87; "Indeterminacy and the Reader's Response in Prose Fiction," Prospecting: From Reader Response to Literary Anthropology (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1989), 3-30; "Interaction Between Text and Reader," The Reader in the Text, 106-19; "For the Readers," ed. Edward Bloom, Novel II (1977): 19-25; and "Interview: Wolfgang Iser," ed. RudolfE. Kuenzli, Diacritics 10 (1980): 57-73. Of Iser's three major books, The Act of Reading (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1978); The Implied Reader (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1974); and Prospecting (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1989), only The Act of Reading substantially supplements his discussion of literary theory as presented in the articles above.

17 See, for example, James 1. Resseguie, "Reader-Response Criticism and the Synoptic Gospels," JAAR 52 (1984): 302-24; J. Botha, "Iser's Wandering Point of View," Neot 22 (1988); 253-68; Jouette M. Bassler, "The Parable of the Loaves," JR 66 (1976): 157-72; and Tyson, Images ofJudaism.

18 Iser, "For the Readers," 6 I.

19 On the difference between literary theory and literary criticism (or method), see Iser, "The Current Situation of Literary Theory," New Literary History II (1979): 5-6 and Act of Reading, ix-xii. 50 texts,20 but he suggests that his "theory" of reading can help critics "to devise a framework for mapping out and guiding empirical studies of reader reaction."21 Devising such a framework requires a firm grasp on the elements (particularly the uniquenesses) ofIser's theory.

Rudolf E. Kuenzli's superb review of Iser's Act of Reading highlights the uniqueness which distinguishes Iser's literary theory from that of other reader­ response critics. Kuenzli explains that other reader-response critics

tend to imply two kinds of determinism: either the reader's role is determined by the text, and an ideal reader is posited; or the text is determined by the sociological andlor psychological make-up of the individual reader, and the text is reduced to an indeterminate Rorschach blot. Wolfgang Iser's [work] is a significant contribution to the present theoretical discussion, since he attempts to avoid subjectivist and objectivist determinacies by developing an ideal model which establishes the intersubjective structure of the dynamic intemction between the text and reader?2 First and foremost in Iser's theory is the insistence "that meanings in literary texts are generated in the act of reading; they are the product ofa complex interaction between text and reader.'m Meaning (the actualization or effect of a text on a reader),24 for Iser, results from the "corning together of text and

20 Iser, "Interaction," 118-19. Iser understands that his literary theory, like any literary theory, will have to "undergo a definite transformation" in order to serve as an interpretive method. See "The Current Situation of Literary Theory," 5-6.

21 Iser, Act ofReading, x.

22 Rudolf E. Kuenzli, "The Intersubjective Structure of the Reading Process," Diacritics 10 (1980): 48.

23 Iser, "Indeterminacy," 5, emphasis added. Although he often speaks of "meaning" and "meanings," Iser, "Interview," 71, clarifies his use of these terms by explaining: "If I have given the impression that I seem obsessed by 'seeking a meaning,' this is due to the fact that I should like to move the discussion of meaning onto a different plane: Not what the meaning is, but how it is produced."

24 Iser's understanding of the term "meaning(s)" is not that of the New Critics (and most biblical scholars). When Iser refers to the "meaning(s)" of a text, he means the reader's "actualization" of the text or the text's "effect" upon the reader. Iser, Act of Reading, 53, argues that "what is important to readers, critics, and authors alike is what literature does and not what it means" (emphasis Iser's). Also see Act ofReading, 3-27, especially 15-16,21-23. 51 imagination."2s He steadfastly rejects literary theories which focus solely on either the "author's intention or the reader's psychology.,,26 A literary theory needs, according to Iser, to account for "the two-way traffic between the text and reader."27 As Iser understands the reading process, the reader and text "act upon and so transform each other."28 Yet Iser is, as Kuenzli noted, emphatic in his insistence that neither partner in the communication process (text or reader) is entirely overwhelmed (or "determined") by the other.29 The text affects the reader, but the reader affects the manner in which the text is processed.30 As Iser understands the reading process, the interaction between the text and the reader is so complete that "[s]trictly speaking, what we see here is a complex reality, in which the difference between subject [reader] and object [text] disappears [in their interaction]."31

(Iser is often mistakenly accused of sharing the New Critics' understanding of meaning. For example, see Jane P. Tompkins, "The Reader in History," Reader-Response Criticism, 201.) When Iser does discuss meaning, he characteristically refers to "meanings" rather than "meaning," because he insists that the range of possible meanings for any particular text is "incalculably variable" and that a literary text cannot be "reduced to one particular meaning." See Indeterminacy," 5 and The Implied Reader, 222.

25 iser, "Reading Process," 279.

26 See Iser, "Interaction," 106-07.

27lser, "Interview," 64. Also see Iser, "Interaction," 106-07 and Act ofReading, 107.

2. Iser, "Interaction," 119.

29 Iser, "Interview," 64.

30 "Reading is an activity that is guided by the text; this must be processed by the reader, who is then, in tum, affected by what he has processed." Iser, Act ofReading, 163.

31 Iser, Act of Reading, 135, citing Jean Starobinski, emphasis Iser's. Iser, "For the Readers," 21, explains: "Despite their usefulness, separate analysis of the artistic [textual] and aesthetic [reader] poles would have only limited value if the relationship between them were that of transmitter and receiver. As if, that is, we were to presuppose a common code insuring the accurate communication of a message traveling only one way. In literary works, however, the message is transmitted in two ways, in that the reader receives it by composing it. There is no common code. At best, one could say that a common code may rise in the course of the process." 52 Yet in constructing his theory, Iser is, for heuristic purposes, forced to deal separately with the three categories of text, reader, and interaction between text and reader. In his analysis of these three categories, Iser sometimes sounds like an advocate of textual determinacy. For example, he acknowledges that "the reader's activity must be controlled in some way by the text.,,32 At other times, he sounds like an advocate ofa reader-centered determinacy. For example, he argues that meanings are generated by individual readers and thus "will always appear individualistic.,,33 Yet the central feature ofIser's theory is not its correspondence with textually determined or reader determined reader-response theories, but its distinctive emphasis upon this third category of interaction between the text and the reader. Iser's primary concern was not merely to describe the role of the text or of the reader in the reading process, but rather "to fmd means of describing the reading process as a dynamic interaction between text and reader."34 Yet in spite of Iser's emphasis upon this "dynamic interaction," the best way to introduce his thought is to present his analysis of each of these three separate categories: the text, the reader, and the interaction between the text and reader. This dissertation will now explore how these three categories are presented in Iser's theory.

A) The Text in Iser's Theory

Iser begins his discussion of the text by explaining the heuristic character of his model. Iser emphasizes:

32 Iser, "Interaction," 1l0. At times, he can speak of the text's "reader manipulation." See Iser, "Indeterminacy," 14.

33 Iser, "Indeterminacy," 5.

34 Iser, Act ofReading, 107, emphasis added In spite of the emphasis he places upon the interaction between the text and reader, Iser, "Interaction," 107, admits the difficulty of the task which he has set for himself. Iser acknowledges that "ihe two partners in the communication process, namely, the text and the reader, are far easier to analyze than is the event that takes place between them." 53 Every textual model involves certain heuristic decisions; the model cannot be equated with the literary text itself, but simply opens up a means of access to it. Whenever we analyze a text, we never deal with a text pure and simple, but inevitably apply a frame of reference specifically chosen for our analysis. 35 The textual model which Iser employs has two main components: repertoire and strategies.

The repertoire of the text relates to the historical, cultural and social setting of the text. For Iser,

[t1he repertoire consists of all the familiar territory within the text. This may be in the form of references to earlier works, or to social and historical norms, or to the whole culture from which the text has emerged.36 By providing a background of familiar norms, the repertoire enables the reader to envisage the setting of the text and thereby renders the text comprehensible. Yet at the same time, the various elements of the repertoire are, by their inclusion within the narrative, taken out of their original context and offered up for observation. By removing the familiar norms of the repertoire from the context in which they originally functioned and placing them within a new (literary) context ("recodifying" them), the text calls the validity of those norms into question.37

3S Iser, Act ofReading, 53. Iser's insistence that readers have no access to the text "pure and simple" has prompted some persons to label his thought as "postmodem." See, for example, Robert M. Fowler, "Postmodem Biblical Criticism," Forum 5 (1989): 3-30 and George Aichele, "On Postmodem Biblical Criticism and Exegesis," Forum 5 (1989): 547-62. On the other hand, Stephen D. Moore is unwilling to labellser's thought as postmodem. See "The 'Post' Age Stamp: Does It Stick?" JAAR 47 (1989): 543-59, especially 546-47 and "Postmodemism and Biblical Studies: A Response to Robert Fowler," Forum 5 (1989): 36-41. Moore's argument is more persuasive, because Iser does assume a stable text and, to a lesser extent, a determinate text

36 Iser, Act ofReading, 69.

37 "The repertoire of the familiar-whether it be literary tradition, contemporary 'Weltanschauung,' or social reality-forms the background of the novel. The familiar is reproduced in the text, but in its reproduction it seems different, for its component parts have been altered, its frame of reference has changed, its validity has, to a degree, been negated." Iser, The Implied Reader, 34. 54 Iser explains how the norms within the repertoire function in different situations.

If the literary work arises out of the reader's own social and philosophical background, it will serve to detach prevailing norms from their functional context, thus enabling the reader to observe how such social regulators function, and what effect they have on the people subject to them. The reader is thus placed in a position from which he can take a fresh look at the forces which guide and orient him, and which he may hitherto have accepted without question. If these norms have now faded into past history, and the reader is no longer entangled in the system from which they arose, he will be able not only to reconstruct, from their recodification, the historical situation that provided the framework for the text but also to experience for himself the specific deficiencies brought about by those historical norms, and to recognize the answers implicit in the text.38 Iser suggests that allusions to previous literature serve a distinctive purpose within the repertoire. Whereas the inclusion of cultural, historical and social norms within the repertoire removes them from their functional context and exposes their deficiencies, the inclusion of literary allusions within the repertoire helps to create a means of overcoming those deficiencies.39 The literary allusions do not, however, present direct solutions to those deficiencies because the literary allusions are, like the cultural, historical and social norms, placed within a new context. Rather the literary allusions generalize the repertoire and help the reader to develop guidelines for reflecting upon the issues being raised by the narrative.40 In Iser's understanding, literary allusions

'quote' earlier answers to the problems-answers which no longer constitute a valid meaning for the present work, but which offer a form of orientation by means of which the new meaning may perhaps be found.41

3. Iser, Act ofReading, 74. Also see similar comments on page 78.

39 "And if the function of the incorporated norms is to bring out the deficiencies of a prevailing system, the function of literary allusions is to assist in producing an answer to the problems set by these deficiencies." Iser, Act ofReading, 79.

40 Iser, Act ofReading, 79-80.

41 Iser, Act ofReading, 79. 55 The literary allusions provide orientation as they interact with the historical depictions. The primary influence upon this orientation is the degree of equivalence between the historical and literary elements of the repertoire. Iser suggests that "propagandist literature," on one end of the spectrum, has a high degree of equivalence between the literary and historical elements of the repertoire because the purpose of such literature is "to stabilize the system and protect it against the attacks resulting from its own weaknesses. ,,42 Non­ propagandist (and, in Iser's opinion, better) literature, on the other end of the spectrum, however, uses the nonequivalence between the literary and historical elements of the repertoire to communicate "something new." The literary elements of the repertoire challenge ("deform") the presumed givenness of the historical norms; the historical elements of the repertoire challenge ("deform") the idealism of the literary allusions. Because of this "coherent deformation," the reader is positioned to envisage "something new." This "something" is never explicitly stated in the repertoire; the reader develops it while engaging the entire repertoire as he or she strives to create equivalence between the literary allusions and the historical elements of the repertoire.43

While the repertoire provides the external frame of reference for establishing the meaning of a text,44 tex'IDal strategies, the other half of Iser's textual model, provide the internal structure for establishing meaning. 45 Textual strategies are the unstated principles of textual organization which link the elements of the repertoire together and enable the reader to establish relationships

42 Iser, Act of Reading, 83. Iser suggests that much socialist literature is written in this manner.

43 Iser, Act of Reading, 82-83. Iser, Act of Reading, 85, describes this process as "the imaginary correction of deficient realities."

44 Also see Iser's discussion of the background of the repertoire. Act ofReading, 92-95.

45 "[T]he main task of text strategies is to organize the internal network of references." Act ofReading, 96, emphasis lser's. 56 between the competing elements within the repertoire. In Iser's understanding, textual strategies direct the reader, but they also call upon the reader's creativity. Textual strategies do not dictate the reader's response; they "only offer the reader possibilities of organization.,,46

In Iser's model, a text contains various perspectives47 (primarily those of the narrator, the characters, the plot and the fictitious reader) from which the meaning of the text is developed48 (although the meaning is not to be identified with anyone of these perspectives).49 Iser suggests that textual strategies organize these perspectives within a theme and horizon structure. As the text progresses particular perspectives will come forward at particular times to serve as a theme causing the other perspectives temporarily to fade into the horizon. In the course of the narrative, many themes will emerge only eventually to be relegated to the horizon. Yet perspectives within the horizon remain significant in the progressive production of meaning. Iser emphasizes the progressive character of the theme and horizon structure by explaining that

[o]ur attitude toward each theme is influenced by the horizon of past themes, and as each theme itself becomes part of the horizon during the time-flow of our reading, so it, too, exerts an influence on subsequent themes. Each change denotes not a loss but an enrichment, as attitudes are at one and the same time refined and broadened. 50

46 Iser, Act ofReading, 86, emphasis !ser's.

41 Iser also uses the terms "schematized views" and "textual segments" to describe what the text offers the reader. See "For the Reader," 20-21; "Indeterminacy," 8; and "Interaction," 114.

48 Iser sometimes speaks of creating "meaning" and sometimes speaks of creating an "aesthetic object," but the terms refer to the same process. (Iser equates the terms. See Act of Reading, 96.) Iser draws upon the "meaning" language when he is referring to literature and "object" language when he is referring to the broader phenomenological bases for his theory. This dissertation draws more heavily upon the "meaning" language since it is concerned only with the literary implications of Iser's theory.

49 See Iser, Act ofReading, 96; "For the Readers," 21-22; and "Interaction," 113.

so Iser, Act ofReading, 99. On the relationship between the reading process and the time­ flow of the narrative, also see "For the Readers," 23. 57 Iser's textual model, therefore, contains two components. On the one hand, the text provides a repertoire of historical norms and literary allusions from which the reader draws external frames of reference which point toward both the deficiencies being addressed in the text and some of the solutions which have been offered for those deficiencies in the past. On the other hand, the text also contains strategies which provide internal frames of reference to guide the reader toward possible ways of relating those deficiencies and solutions to one another.

B) The Reader in Iser' s Theory

As Iser understands the reading process, the communication of meaning is not effected solely by the text. Rather Iser argues that "the way in which it [the text] is received depends as much on the reader as on the text.,,51 He insists that

[t]extual models designate only one aspect of the communicatory process. Hence textual repertoires and strategies simply offer a frame within which the reader must construct for himself the aesthetic object. 52 Although there are no "hard-and-fast rules" for the exact manner in which readers must respond to any individual text,S3 Iser theorizes that readers' construction of meaning ["the aesthetic object"] generally entails two processes: consistency-building and synthesis formation.

Both processes are necessitated because of the manner in which a reader encounters a text. As Iser understands it, "our first problem is the fact that the

51 Iser, Act ofReading, 107, emphasis Iser's.

52 Iser, Act ofReading, 107, emphasis added.

53 Iser, "Indeterminacy," 14. 58 whole text can never be perceived at anyone time."s4 The reader does not experience the text (or the meaning of the text) as a single distinctive and integral object. Literary texts do not denote their aesthetic object. Rather they provide differing perspectives on an aesthetic object (or "meaning" in literary terms) and call for the reader to participate in the (mental) creation of that object for himself or herself. The reader's relationship to a text is not that of a detached observer looking upon an object but rather that of a participant who "has a moving

viewpoint which travels along inside that which it has to apprehend. "ss

As the reader progresses through a narrative he or she continuously participates in the text's diverse perspectives throughout the reading process, adapting to different individual perspectives at different points in the reading process. Yet the reader's attention is not completely consumed by any single perspective. Rather the reader's "wandering point of view" is continuously shifting from one perspective to another and evaluating each perspective in light of the others. Even as a reader adapts to the perspective of one textual segment, memories of previous perspectives are being recalled and transformed; expectations for future perspectives are arising and being modified. Iser explains:

Every articulate reading moment entails a switch of perspective, and this constitutes an inseparable combination of differentiated perspectives, foreshortened memories, present modifications, and future expectations. Thus, in the time-flow of the reading process, past and future continually converge in the present moment, and the synthesizing operations of the wandering viewpoint enable the text to pass through the reader's mind as an ever-expanding network of connections. 56

54 Iser, Act of Reading, 108-09. "In every text there is a potential time sequence which the reader must inevitably realize, as it is impossible to absorb even a short text in a single moment." Iser, "Reading Process," 280.

55 Iser, Act of Reading, 109, emphasis Iser's. On the reader's "wandering viewpoint" as the fundamental reason for the processes both of consistency-building and synthesis formation, see 108-18 and 135-36.

56 Iser, Act of Reading, 116. For more on the role of expectations, see Iser, "Reading Process," 278-8 I. 59 As a part of the reader's consistency-building process, this network of connections develops into a "gestalt" or "consistent interpretation."s7 Iser distinguishes between two levels of gestalten. A primary gestalt entails a consistent understanding of particular plot-level perspectives. A secondary gestalt provides an interpretation of the significance of that plot-level gestalt within the larger meaning being developed for the narrative. 58 Because several different gestalten could be created from any particular set of textual perspectives, the formation of gestalten, both primary and secondary, involves selection and actualization of potential meanings. 59

This process of selection and actualization consists of leaving some possible meanings virtual while making others actual in one's gestalt. As Iser explains, "a gestalt can only be closed if one possibility is selected and the rest excluded. ,,60 A gestalt takes on increased closure (and a greater determinacy for subsequent gestalten) as the reader finds it consistent with the meaning being developed for the entire work. 61 Thus each individual gestalt carries with it "alien associations" which cannot be integrated into it and which potentially can undermine it. Iser acknowledges the tentative nature of all consistency-building in his description of the way in which a gestalt is transformed. He explains that

the selections we make in reading produce an overflow of possibilities that remain virtual as opposed to actual. ... From their virtual presence arise the 'alien associations' which begin to accumulate and so to bombard the formulated gestalten, which in turn become undermined and thus bring

57 Iser, Act ofReading, 119. "But this gestalt is not explicit in the text-it emerges from a projection of the reader. .. " Act ofReading, 121.

58 Iser, Act ofReading, 123.

59 "With all literary texts, then, we may say that the reading process is selective, and the potential text is infmitely richer than any of its realizations." Iser, "Reading Process," 280.

60 Iser, Act ofReading, 123.

61 Iser, Act of Reading, 124. The creation of meaning for the whole of a text will be addressed in more detail in the subsequent discussion of synthesis formation. 60 about a reorientation of our acts of apprehension .... the direction of our selection has changed, because the 'alien associations'-i.e., those possibilities that had hitherto remained virtual-have now so modified our earlier gestalten that our attitude has begun to shift. 62 Thus for Iser the reader's consistency-building process entails selectively assembling the diverse perspectives presented in the text into coherent gestalten. Positively, this process actualizes some of the text's potential meanings, and negatively it excludes some of the text's potential meanings.63 Although consistency-building is a cumulative process, its very selectivity means that it is never final. Any individual gestalt may be invalidated if it, in the time-flow of the reading process, is eventually perceived to be incongruent with the reader's larger consistency-building efforts.

These larger consistency-building efforts include the second process which, according to Iser's theory, is entailed in the reader's construction of meaning: synthesis fonnation. Whereas the fonnation of gestalten enables the reader to comprehend the various units within a narrative, the fonnation of syntheses occurs as the reader begins to create meaning for the "totality" of a text.64 In language similar to that used in his discussion of gestalt fonnation, Iser explains that

62 Iser, Act ofReading, 126. Elsewhere, Iser, Act ofReading, 129, discusses how "fringe influences" to a gestalt become "alternatives" to that gestalt. Also see Iser, "Reading Process," 286.

63 "Our intentional acts of understanding will always result in an unavoidable reduction of the potential contained in the literary text." Iser, "Situation," 16.

64 Iser does not clearly define the relationship between consistency-building (gestalt formation) and synthesis formation. At times, he seems almost to equate the two processes. For example, in the conclusion to his chapter on synthesis formation, Iser uses the term "gestalt" where one would expect him to speak ofa "synthesis" and he speaks of "the synthesizing process" early in his discussion of gestalt formation. (See Act ofReading, 109, 158.) Overall, however, he generally uses the language of gestalt formation to explain how a reader "grasps" individual units (scenes) within a narrative and the language of synthesis formation to explain how a reader creates meaning for the whole of the narrative. For example, Iser, Act of Reading, 148, explains that syntheses are built up "for the purpose of fulfilling the intention of the novel itself. This cannot be done in a single moment or within a few pages [like gestalt formation]." 61 the written text contains a sequence of aspects which imply a totaliy [sic], but this totality is not fonnulated, although it conditions the structure of these aspects. The totality has to be assembled, and only then do the aspects carry their full weight. It is the reader who must conceive the totality which the aspects prestructure, and it is in his mind that the text coheres.65 Such coherent syntheses, Iser suggests, nonnally fonn below the threshold of consciousness (unless they are lifted to a conscious level for the sake of criticism). As Iser understands them, these syntheses arise in the reader's mind passively, but passively only in the sense that they arise apart from any predictive or evaluative activity on the part of the reader and not in the sense of the text merely imprinting itself on the reader's mind. He explains that

these syntheses are of an unusual kind. They are neither manifested in the printed text, nor produced solely by the reader's imagination, and the projections of which they consist are themselves of a dual nature: they emerge from the reader, but they are also guided by signals which 'project' themselves into him.66 These syntheses, which are characteristically fonnulated as mental images,67 are progressively developed during the reading process. As the reader progresses through a narrative and accumulates its various elements in his or her mind, the reader develops a sequence of interrelated syntheses ("the snowball effect") so that the reader's final synthesis of the narrative takes on a temporal quality. Iser explains that

the time axis basically conditions and arranges the overall meaning, by making each image recede into the past, thus subjecting it to inevitable

65 Iser, Act oJReading, 147.

66 Iser, Act oj Reading, 135. Even though Iser emphasizes the role of the reader as the creator or assemblyperson of meaning, he is careful never entirely to negate the influence of the text in the reading process. Iser's comments about the nature of the text's actual influence do, however, generally remain vague. For example, Iser, Act oj Reading, 142, explains that "the meaning of the literary work remains related to what the printed text says, but it requires the creative imagination of the reader to put it all together" (emphasis added).

67 "The basic element of the passive synthesis is the image." Act oj Reading, 136. Also see Iser, "Reading Process," 285. 62 modifications, which, in tum, bring forth the new image. . . . It is therefore difficult, if not impossible, to isolate individual phases of this process and call them the meaning of the text, because the meaning in fact stretches out over the whole course of ideation. Meaning itself, then has a temporal character, the peculiarity of which is revealed by the fact that the articulation of the text into the past, present, and future by the wandering viewpoint does not result in fading memories and arbitrary expectations, but in an uninterrupted synthesis ofall the time phases.68 The temporal character of the reader's synthesis-forming activities has implications not only for how the reader constitutes the meaning of the text, but also for how the text affects the reader. Iser explains that during the reading process

[w]e place our synthesizing faculties at the disposal of an unfamiliar reality, produce the meaning of that reality, and in so doing enter into a situation which we could not have created out of ourselves. Thus the meaning of the literary text can only be fulfilled in the reading subject and does not exist independently of him; just as important, though, is that the reader himself, in constituting the meaning. is also constituted. And herein lies the full significance of the so-called passive synthesis.69 During the reading process, as Iser understands it, the reader's participation in the creation of the meaning of the text effects change in the reader himself or herself because the reader, having created a meaning for the text, immediately begins to reflect upon the significance of that meaning.70 Iser first asserts that "[m]eaning and significance are not the same thing,,,71 then he explains:

68 Iser,Act ofReading, 148-49, emphasis added.

69 Iser, Act ofReading, 150, emphasis added.

70 Iser, Act ofReading, 150.

71 Iser, Act of Reading, 151, insists upon the importance of maintaining this distinction, explaining that the "search for meaning that has dogged approaches to post-classical literature has caused a great deal of confusion, precisely because the distinction between meaning and significance has been overlooked. It is scarcely surprising that so many disputes should have arisen over the 'meanings' which critics have found in specific works, since by 'meaning' they have in fact meant 'significance,' and this has been guided by so many different codes and conventions. Consequently, they have been challenging each other's significances, mistakenly dubbed as meanings." 63 Meaning is the referential totality which is implied by the aspects contained in the text and which must be assembled in the course of reading. Significance is the reader's absorption of the meaning into his own existence.72 Meaning and significance are different, but interrelated, categories for Iser. They differ in that significance, as the personal appropriation of meaning, is logically dependent upon the prior establishment of meaning and in that significance is more directly influenced by the reader's own personal history and circumstances than is meaning. Whereas the significance which the reader attaches to the meaning of a text is produced largely in relation to the "codes and conventions" within the reader's own social and cultural context, the meaning which the reader assembles for the text is more closely related to the repertoire of the text and its social and cultural context. 73 Meaning and significance are interrelated in that both meaning and significance are produced by a reader's participation in the text and in that neither meaning nor significance can exist without the other.

Iser attempts to walk a fine line by insisting upon a distinction between meaning and significance while also affirming their basic interrelatedness. On the one hand, Iser emphasizes textual determinacy (though not absolute textual determinacy) in his discussion of the creation of meaning. At the same time, however, he also insists upon the necessity of the reader's participation even in the creation of meaning. On the other hand, Iser emphasizes the reader's determinacy (though not absolute determinacy) in his discussion of the appropriation of the significance of the text's meaning. At the same time,

72 lser, Act ofReading, 150-51.

73 lser, Act of Reading, 150-52. Iser, Act ofReading, 152, acknowledges that some texts assume "norms and values" which are alien to contemporary readers and suggests that "[w lith such texts, where the reader's viewpoint is shaped by the given views of a particular historical public, this viewpoint can only be bought back to life by a historical reconstruction of the then prevailing values." Thus Iser is not, as many biblical critics have suggested, entirely dismissive of the historical contexts of various narratives. 64 however, he insists that the text provides some guidance even in the reader's appropriation of significance. What emerges from Iser's walking this line is a "dialectical movement" in which neither text nor reader ever possesses absolute determinacy over meaning or significance, but in which the reader and text continuously interact. The text becomes the dominant force within the dialectic during the creation of meaning and the reader becomes the dominant force within the dialectic during the establishment of significance.74 Iser's entire discussion of meaning and significance is characterized by an eagerness to affirm the determinate force of each side of this dialectic without ever entirely negating the force of the other side of the dialectic. Ultimately, however, meaning and significance coalesce as the reader is affected by the significance of the meaning which he or she is creating. Iser finally acknowledges that "[t]he constitution of meaning, therefore, gains its full significance when something happens to the reader."75

"One important strategy" by which the text guides the reader toward the establishment of meaning and significance is the use of the "fictitious reader" who

is generally an embodiment of particular, contemporary dispositions--he is a perspective rather than a person, and as such he takes his place alongside (and intermingled with) the other perspectives of narrator, characters, and plot. 76 Iser's fictitious reader does not function as a sort of authoritative or ideal reader, but rather this reader "simply show[s] up the prevalent norms of the day" so that

74 See Iser, Act afReading, 157-58.

75 Iser, Act af Reading, 152, emphasis Iser's. Similarly, Iser, Act af Reading, 158, acknowledges that "the constitution of meaning not only implies the creation of a totality emerging from interacting textual perspectives-as we have already seen-but also, through formulating this totality, it enables us to formulate ourselves."

76 Iser, Act af Reading, 153. The "fictitious reader" is not synonymous with Iser's "implied reader." The fictitious reader is one of four textual perspectives. The implied reader is a (troublesome) concept which Iser adopts when introducing the "rudiments" of his theory. The concept of the implied reader will be examined later in this dissertation. 65 they may become the "object of critical scrutiny."77 The perspective of the fictitious reader helps to guide the response of the real reader not by offering an ideal set of reactions to the text, but rather by exposing the ideas and values which the real reader has previously held without ever fully evaluating. When these ideas and values are embodied within the fictitious reader, the real reader is forced to scrutinize them. This process often results in the real reader "quite involuntarily opposing attitudes and ideas he had previously taken for granted."78

In Iser's theory, therefore, the reader encounters a text as a sequence of interacting perspectives which must be assembled by the reader into a coherent "aesthetic object." As the reader progresses through a narrative, his or her "wandering point of view" adapts to various textual perspectives at different points in the reading process. The reader assembles these various perspectives in order to form a coherent meaning for the text. The reader's activity in the reading process is conceptualized in two ways. First, the reader engages in consistency­ building, which entails the construction of coherent gestalten for the various scenes and events within the narrative. Second, the reader begins to synthesize these gestalten in order to form a meaning for the totality of the narrative. As consequences of this progressive synthesis formation, meaning itself takes on a temporal quality in keeping with the time-flow of the narrative, and the reader himself or herself is transformed by his or her participation in the creation of that meaning.

77 Iser, Act ofReading, 153.

78 Iser, Act of Reading, 153. !ser traces the origins of the fictitious reader to the eighteenth century. 66 C) Interaction between Text and Reader in Iser's Theory

Iser introduces the most controversial category of his theory, the category of the interaction between the text and reader, by acknowledging the difficulty of analyzing this interaction. Yet in spite of this difficulty he suggests that "there are discernible conditions that govern interaction generally, and some of these will certainly apply to the special reader-text relationship."79 After surveying various theories of communication, Iser focuses upon' the concept of indeterminacy, suggesting that the points of indeterminacy, where neither party is able to superimpose its view(s) upon the other party, are crucial for understanding interaction between two entities (whether between two persons or between a person and a text).so He insists that "it can be said that indeterminacy is the fundamental precondition for reader participation."sl Iser finds these places of indeterminacy (or "gaps") taking two different forms in literature: blanks and negations.s2 In introducing these two types of indeterminacy, Iser explains that each has a different function.

Blanks and negations both control the process of communication in their own different ways: the blanks leave open the connections between perspectives in the text, and so spur the reader into coordinating these perspectives-in other words, they induce the reader to perform the basic operations within the text. The various types of negation invoke familiar or determinate elements only to cancel them out. What is canceled, however, remains in view, and thus brings about modifications in the reader's attitude toward what is familiar or determinate-in other words, he is guided to adopt a position in relation to the text. S3

79 Iser, Act ofReading, 163.

80 Iser, Act ofReading, 167. Also see "Reading Process," 279-80.

81 Iser, "Indeterminacy," 10.

82 "There are in fact two basic structures of indeterminacy in the text-blanks, and negations. These are essential conditions for communication, for they set in motion the interaction that takes place between the text and reader, and to a certain extent they also regulate it." !ser, Act ofReading, 182. Also see Kuenzli, "Review," 51.

8J Iser, Act ofReading, 169, emphasis !ser's. Also see Iser, "Interaction," 112. 67 This dissertation will now examine each of these types of indetenninacy separately. First, the blank, "a vacancy in the overall system of the text,,,S4 appears when the reader senses a lack of "connectability" between the various segments of the text. 85 The reader senses that "the different segments of the text are to be connected, even though the text itself does not say SO."S6 This lack of connection triggers the reader's consistency-building efforts and the reader seeks to produce a detenninate relationship between the various segments. 87 Iser explains that

[t]he blanks break up the connectability of schemata, and thus they marshal selected nonns and perspective segments into a fragmented, counterfactual, contrastive or telescoped sequence, nullifying any expectation of good continuation. As a result, the imagination is automatically mobilized, thus increasing the constitutive activity of the reader, who cannot help but try and supply the missing links that will bring the schemata together in an integrated gestalt.88 These blanks are, as Iser understands them, absolutely crucial for understanding the reading process because the impediments which they create compel the reader to step outside of his or her "habitual way of thinking." The disruption of the reader's customary frame of reference involves the reader in a series of conscious decisions about the connections between the various segments of the text. (It also involves the reader in revisions of those

.. Iser, Act ofReading, 182. Also see Iser, "Interview," 118.

8$ "Indeed, it is only through inevitable omissions that a story gains its dynamism. Thus whenever the flow is interrupted and we are led off in unexpected directions, the opportunity is given to us to bring into play our own faculty for establishing connections-for filling in gaps left by the text itself." Iser, "Reading Process," 280. Also see Iser, "Interaction," I 13- I 4 and "Indeterminacy," 9.

86 Iser, Act ofReading, 182-83, emphasis Iser's. Also see !ser, "Indeterminacy," 9- I O.

87 "But with the establishment of this connectability the blank, as the unformulated framework of these interacting segments, now enables the reader to produce a determinate relationship between them." Iser, "Interaction," 114.

88lser, Act ofReading, 186, emphasis Iser's. 68 89 decisions. ) The blanks make the reader more conscious of the newness of the ideas being formed and

thus, in principle, we can watch what we are producing, and we can watch ourselves while we are producing it. This distance, opened up by impeded ideation, is a basic prerequisite for comprehension, as we comprehend a fictional text through the experience it makes us undergo. 90 The blank is, therefore, a vital component within the reading process because its presence

means that the reader is not simply called upon to 'internalize' the positions given in the text, but he is induced to make them act upon and so transform each other, as a result of which the aesthetic object begins to emerge. 91 The blanks are, for Iser, one of the two points at which the reader most actively and consciously participates in creating the meaning of a narrative as he or she strives to develop a consistent interpretation of the perspectives presented within the narrative.

Negations, the second type of indeterminacy in Iser's theory, do, like blanks, create gaps within the text for the reader to fill. Negations create these gaps by canceling out the validity of the norms incorporated into the text. (The reader's participation is called upon most forcefully in texts which avoid immediately supplying a new set of norms to replace those which have been

92 negated. ) According to Iser, the gaps created by negations, like the gaps created by blanks, spark the reader's imaginative activity. Iser insists:

89 "We look forward, we look back, we decide, we change our decisions, we form expectations, we are shocked by their nonfulfillment, we question, we muse, we accept, we reject, this is the dynamic process of recreation." Iser, "Reading Process," 288.

90 Iser, Act ofReading, 189.

91 Iser, Act ofReading, 203. Also see Iser, "Interaction," 119.

92 Iser, Act of Reading, 216, explains that "lighter literature" often negates one set of norms and then immediately offers an alternative set for the reader to adopt, but this simple pattern ("not this, but this") is not found in "better literature." 69 There is no doubt that the negative slant given to the knowledge offered induces the reader to ideate the as yet hidden cause governing the negation-and in so doing he formulates what had been left unformulated.93 Although all gaps, whether created by blanks or negations, stimulate the reader's powers of imagination, the gaps created by negations are distinguished from those created by blanks in one important respect. Whereas blanks call for the reader to relate the various perspectives within the text to one another, negations call for the reader to relate himself or herself to the text because negations prompt the reader to make judgments about what is in the text on the basis of what is not in the text, that is, on the basis of the unformulated cause which guides the negations. 94

This process of discovering the unformulated then becomes a means through which the narrative effects change in the reader. In formulating an underlying cause for the negations within the text the reader is forced to draw upon his or her powers of discernment and thus to adopt a position in relation to content of the narrative. Then, having adopted a position in relation to the text, the reader is situated for a negation of his or her own ideals. Iser explains that

[t]he gradual progress of this formulation draws the reader into the text but also away from his own habitual disposition, so that he finds himself impelled more and more to make a choice between standpoints. He is caught, as it were, between his discoveries and his habitual disposition. If he adopts the discovery standpoint, his own disposition may then become the theme for observation; if he holds fast to his governing conventions, he must then give up his discoveries. Whichever choice he may make will be conditioned by the tension of his position, which forces him to try and achieve a balance. The incongruity between discovery and disposition can generally only be removed through the emergence of a third dimension, which is perceived as the meaning of the text. The balance is achieved when the disposition

93 Iser, Act ofReading, 214.

9, Iser, Act ofReading, 213, explains that "the reader is constrained to develop a specific attitude that will enable him to discover that which the negation has indicated but not formulated. 70 experiences a correction, and in this correction lies the function of the discovery.95 Negations are, therefore, important parts of Iser's theory of the reading process because they provide important bases from which a narrative may effect change in its readers. Negations do not, however, effect change merely by invalidating one set of norms and then offering another. Rather they negate one set of norms without ever explicitly offering an altemative.96 Their effect is wrought by their subtle inducements for the reader to formulate the underlying, but unstated, ideals which guide the negations. Then, having given form to these unstated ideals, the reader is forced to evaluate himself or herself in light of these ideals, because they are, in a very real sense, the reader's own ideals.

In Iser's understanding, then, the interaction between the text and the reader takes its most active form at points of indeterminacy, points where the reader is forced to create a consistent image out of the seemingly conflicting perspectives within the text or where the reader is forced to envisage an unstated cause guiding the negation of the norms contained within the text. This indeterminacy, or negativity,97 is central to Iser's understanding of the reading process because it calls for the reader's participation both in determining how the various perspectives within the text are related to one another and in formulating the unstated ideals which the text subtly promotes.

Further Theoretical Reflections

Before attempting to employ Iser's theory as a reading strategy, this dissertation needs to provide further theoretical reflection on three issues related

95 Iser, Act of Reading, 218. Iser, Act of Reading, 219-21, calls the correction of the reader's disposition "secondary negation," that is, a negation of the ideals which the reader carried with him or her to the text. He suggests that the presence of secondary negations is the distinguishing mark of serious literature.

96 See Iser, Act ofReading, 215-16.

97 See Iser, Act ofReading, 225-3 1. 71 to Iser's theory. First, the "reader" of Iser's theory needs to be more clearly defined and limited. Second, the sources of determinacy and indeterminacy need to be reexamined and stated more clearly. Third, the character of "meaning" in Iser's theory merits reconsideration. This dissertation will now consider these three issues which are associated with the implementation ofIser's theory.

A) Who is the Reader in Iser's Theory?

Iser's critics have repeatedly argued that the reader which Iser discusses so often in his theory is confused in its conception. His critics have complained that they are confused by the manner in which Iser speaks about the "reader." As Iser develops his theory, his reader sometimes seems to be characterized as a real reader and sometimes as a theoretical construct. Elizabeth Freund insists that

with regard to the identity of the reader, Iser manages to straddle two sides of a fence, one text-centered and hypothetical, the other reader-centered and empirical.98 Iser's critics (and many of his admirers) have commonly argued that Iser's concept of the "reader" is incoherent and that this incoherence in his conception of the reader entangles Iser in numerous inconsistencies.99

Although the charges of incoherence and inconsistency surrounding Iser's conception of the reader are well founded, they are not as detrimental to his theory as is often supposed because not all of the readers in his theory are marred by such incoherence. In his discussion of "readers and the concept of the implied reader," Iser identifies three readers.loo First, he identifies "real readers," who are, as the designation suggests, the real flesh and blood persons who pick up a book and

os Return ofthe Reader, 143.

99 See, for example, Freund, Return of the Reader, 144; Robert Scholes, "Cognition and the Implied Reader," Diacritics 5 (1975): 14-15; Wayne Booth, "Interview," ed. Rudolf E. Kuenzli, Diacritics 10 (1980): 77-78; Botha, 255-56; and Moore, "Stories of Reading," 155.

100 Iser, Act ofReading, 27-38. 72 read. lol Second, Iser identifies the "fictitious reader," who is, as has been discussed, a perspective within the narrative. I02 Iser's definitions of these two readers are clear in his theory and provoke few criticisms, but his third reader, the "implied reader,"lo3 is more problematic.

Stanley Porter has suggested that the implied reader "in many ways is the most troublesome concept in reader-response criticism."I04 Whether or not the implied reader is the "most troublesome" concept in Iser's theory is debatable, but it is clearly troublesome. The incoherent character of Iser's definition of the implied reader becomes apparent when Iser is allowed to speak for himself. He writes:

... the concept of the implied reader designates a network of response­ inviting structures, which impel the [real] reader to grasp the text. No matter who or what he may be, the real reader is always offered a particular role to play, and it is this role that constitutes the concept ofthe implied reader. lOS As Iser's critics have so often pointed out, the implied reader cannot be both a function of the text (a network of structures) and a function of the real reader (a role which the real reader assumes). Not even Iser's most ardent followers can understand how the implied reader is "in no way to be identified with any real reader" and yet is able to "imagine," to "formulate," to be "affected," and to be "drawn into the world of the text."I06 Simply stated, Iser ascribes activities to the

101 Iser, Act ofReading, 27-28.

102 Iser, Act ofReading, 35.

103 Iser,Act ofReading, 34-38.

104 Porter, "Why Hasn't Reader-Response Criticism Caught On?" 283.

lOS Iser, Act ofReading, 34-35, emphasis added.

106 Iser, Act ofReading, 34-36. 73 implied reader that only real readers are able to perform. Theoretical constructs cannot be drawn into the world of the text.

Fortunately, though, the implied reader makes only a minor appearance in Iser's theory.107 Iser introduces the concept when he is attempting to explain how critics may "allow for the reader's presence without in any way predetermining his character or his historical situation."108 This goal of positing a reader without any predetermined characteristics or assumptions is, of course, unattainable. Iser seems intuitively to accept the impossibility of the task which he has set for himself because in his subsequent discussions of the reader, as presented earlier in this chapter, he never again appropriates the concept of an implied reader. Rather his subsequent, more detailed, descriptions of the reader in the reading process are limited to the textual perspective of the fictitious reader and the activities of the real reader. Even though Iser did introduce this "troublesome concept" of the implied reader into the vocabulary of reader­ response criticism, it played no significant role in the development of his theory and may be jettisoned without compromising the integrity of the theory .109

Therefore, in order to avoid inconsistency and confusion, this dissertation will distinguish between two-and only two-different types of readers, the fictitious reader, who is a perspective of the text, and the real reader, who is the author of this dissertation. Although the concept of the implied reader has been profitably adapted for use by other New Testament scholars,Jlo it will play no role in this dissertation.

101 The tenn, "implied reader," appears nowhere outside of pages 27-38 in The Act of Reading, Iser's most important presentation of theory.

108 Iser, Act ofReading, 34.

109 A quick review of the quotations from Iser in the previous section of this dissertation, "The Reader in Iser's Theory," will clearly demonstrate that Iser develops his theory with real readers, not the implied reader, in mind.

110 See especially, Tyson, Images ofJudaism. 74

B) Who detennines what is detenninate and indetenninate?

Stanley Fish has accurately summarized Iser's position among literary theorists, explaining that

[t]o the question infonning much of contemporary literary theory-what is the source of interpretive authority, the text or the reader-Iser answers 'both.' He does not, however, conceive of the relationship between them as a partnership in which each brings a portion of the meaning which is then added to the portion brought by the other; for in his theory meaning is something neither of them has (it is not an embodied object); rather it is something that is produced or built up or assembled by a process of interaction in which the two parties play quite different, but interdependent, roles. I II Of course, by affinning that meaning is a product of the interaction between the text and the reader, Iser has drawn criticism from those on both sides of the contemporary literary debate. 112 From those advocating the text as the source of interpretive authority, Iser faces criticisms that the text "disappears" in his theory.1I3 From those advocating the reader as the source of interpretive authority, he faces criticisms that the text ultimately "overwhelms" the reader in his theory.114 Although these attacks from the competing sides in the ongoing debate are to be expected given Iser's meditating position, the most

III "Why No One's Afraid," 69, emphasis Fish's. Iser acknowledges that Fish has provided an "admirable summary" of his theory. See Iser, "Talk Like Whales," 82.

112 "Iser tries to take up a middle position .... And being in the middle means running the risk of being criticized from both sides, which is actually the case with Iser." Botha, 255-56.

113 See, for example, Dagmar Barnouw, Review of Act of Reading and The Implied Reader, Modern Language Notes 94 (1979): 1207; Riquelme, 75-85; Booth, "Interview," 66-68; and "For the Authors," ed. Edward Bloom, Novelli (1977): 6-19, especially 6-7.

114 Botha, 255-56, is correct to assert that "Iser's critics in general agree that his theory is ultimately text-immanent (or 'logicist') in spite of his endeavours to account for the reader 'outside' the text as well." See, for example, Steven Mailloux, "Learning to Read," Studies in Literary Imagination 12 (1979): 93-108, especially 93-95; Suleiman, "Introduction," 23-24; Weber, "Caught in the Act," 181-214; Moore, "Stories of Reading," 155; and Literary Criticism and the Gospels, 101-03. 75 forceful criticisms of his theory have not come from those advocating a more determinate role for either the text or the reader, but rather from Stanley Fish.

Fish, one ofIser's most outspoken critics, has argued forcefully that Iser's theory "falls apart because the distinction on which it finally depends-the distinction between the determinate and indeterminate-will not hold."115 Fish assaultsll6 Iser's theory on two seemingly paradoxical fronts. First, Fish argues that literary theorists (like Iser) cannot speak meaningfully about the text providing determinate elements because the reader has no access to the text "before interpretation begins.,,117 Fish argues that readers find determinate elements within a text only through acts of interpretation. He boldly asserts that "there is no distinction between what the text gives and what the reader supplies; he supplies everything.,,118 He contends that any textual perspectives which Iser may find to use as a determinate basis for assembling meaning

will be the products of an interpretive strategy that demands them, and therefore no one of those components can constitute the independent given which serves to ground the interpretive process. 1I9 Second, Fish argues that literary theorists cannot speak meaningfully about points of indeterminacy or gaps where the reader's imagination operates freely because the reader (and his or her imagination) will inevitably be determined by the norms of her or his community of interpretation. As Fish understands the reading process,

ll5 Fish, "Why No One's Afraid," 74.

ll6 Both Fish, "Why No One's Afraid," 85, and Iser, "Talk Like Whales," 83, use the tenn "assault" to describe Fish's criticisms of Iser's theory. The tenn is indicative of the tone of their dialogue.

117 Fish, "Why No One's Afraid," 78. Similarly, see Steven Mailloux, "Reader-Response Criticism?" Genre 10 (1977): 413-3 I.

118 Fish, "Why No One's Afraid," 77, emphasis Fish's.

119 Fish, "Why No One's Afraid," 77. 76 there is no subjectivist element of reading because the observer is never individual in the sense of unique or private, but is always the product of the categories of understanding that are his by virtue of his membership in a community of interpretation. 120 Fish, therefore, concludes that Iser's categories of determinate and indeterminate are inadequate because they misrepresent the character of the interaction between a reader and a text. On the one hand, Fish concludes that theorists cannot speak about the determinate elements within a text because the "mediated" character of all perception precludes any possibility of speaking about the text as a reality apart from a reader's interpretive activity. On the other hand, Fish concludes that theorists cannot speak about readers freely engaging their imaginative powers at points of indeterminacy because the conventional character ofreaders' perceptions will always limit the freedom of the readers' imaginative activity. Fish summarizes his criticisms by arguing that Iser's distinction between the determinate and indeterminate elements of a narrative can be maintained only

if, at some level, we can speak meaningfully of a text that is simply there, waiting for a reader who is, at least potentially, wholly free. But it is precisely that purity that I have been calling into question by pointing out on the one hand that perception is always mediated (and therefore objects are never available directly), and on the other that perception is always conventional (and therefore readers are never free).121 In response to these assaults, Iser agrees with Fish that the text (the "given") "is not purely perceived,"122 but he argues that Fish has oversimplified matters. Iser argues that this lack of a purely perceived text requires the use of three categories: the "given," which is the text itself; the "determinate," which is the interpretive guidance the reader perceives the text to provide; and the "indeterminate," which are the points where the reader perceives the text to lack

120 Fish, "Why No One's Afraid," 83. Fish further develops his understanding of the importance of interpretive communities in Is There A Text In This Class? The Authority of Interpretive Communities (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1989).

121 Fish, "Why No One's Afraid," 83-84.

122 Iser, "Talk Like Whales," 87. 77 internal interpretive guidance. Iser claims that Fish has failed to appreciate the distinction between the "given" and the "determinate" in Iser's theory.123 Although Iser agrees with Fish that the reader gives the text its determinate status, he argues that the text still must be regarded as a separate reality standing behind the reader's perception. Iser insists that the text is a "given" apart from the reader's activity and that this "givenness" remains important because the text

exerts some control on what we can do with it. Professor Fish would argue that because it is never perceived in an unmediated manner, it can offer no guidance to us. I disagree. 124 Of course, Iser's and Fish's debate about what, if anything, the text contributes to the reading process could be prolonged endlessly. This dissertation, however, does not need to enter that debate since the goal of this chapter is to clarify the reading strategy which will be employed in subsequent chapters. Although the importance which Fish and Iser attach to the text in their respective theories varies significantly, that variance does not have significant implications for actual criticism. 125 As a matter of practical criticism, both Fish and Iser discuss particular texts as they see those texts. 126 Neither presumes to have access to a "purely perceived" text-even though Iser insists that his reading has been influenced in some real, though indemonstrable, way by the text itself. Iser's understanding of the text as in some way influencing the reader's response to the text is, I think, more plausible than Fish's assertion of the interpretive community's complete determinacy over the text and reader, but the debate

123 See Iser, "Talk Like Whales," 83. Iser argues that Fish has "collapsed" the two distinct categories of the "given" and the "determinate" into a single category. Also see Iser, "Interview," 72.

124 Iser, "Talk Like Whales," 87.

125 On Fish in particular, see Stephen D. Moore, "Negative Hermeneutics, Insubstantial Texts: Stanley Fish and the Biblical Interpreter," JAAR 54 (1986): 707-19.

126 Iser, "Interview," 7 I, in speaking about the discrimination between what is determinate and indeterminate explains that "this discrimination is very hard to make, and I am basically sceptical [sic] whether we ever shall arrive at a clear-cut decision as to which is which." 78 ultimately cannot be silenced. Neither theory can be proven or falsified because of the absence of a "purely perceived" text to serve as a basis for analysis.

Therefore, as this dissertation appropriates Iser's theoretical framework as the basis for its reading strategy, it will avoid speaking of the determinate and indeterminate elements within the text. Rather this dissertation will acknowledge the mediated and conventional character of perception by discussing the texts of the third gospel and Acts as I, a reader conditioned by the norms of critical scholarship, see them. 127 I will discuss the determinate and indeterminate features of the texts as I see them. I will acknowledge that I am using an interpretive strategy that emphasizes the categories of determinate and indeterminate, but I will not enter into the debate over whether those categories are products of the texts or of the interpretive strategy being applied to those texts.128

C) How do we talk about "meaning?"

Iser, as has been shown, made a concerted effort to redirect the quest for meaning so that meaning took on both temporal and transformative qualities. Thus Iser retained the category of meaning only by significantly redefining it. In doing so, he, of course, encountered resistance to his new definitions. Although Iser has, I believe, advanced the critical debate about the character of meaning, this dissertation has no interest in joining into that debate. Rather this dissertation will simply dispense with the theoretical category of "meaning.,,129 It

127 As another concession to the mediated nature of perception, I will also avoid using Iser's distinction between meaning and significance since this distinction, like the distinction between what the text gives and what the reader supplies, assumes a certain level of purity in one's perception.

128 Even Fish, "Why No One's Afraid," 84, acknowledges that Iser's categories may be employed as part of an interpretive strategy. He does, however, continue to insist that what the reader "sees" is a product of his or her interpretive strategy.

129 On the theoretical character of the category of "meaning," see Iser, "Situation," 17. 79 will dispense with the quest for "meaning"110 and follow the advice of Stephen F owl who advises that

we should eliminate talk of meanings in favor of terms that will both suit our interpretive interests and be precise enough to put a stop to futile discussions. 131 What this dissertation will present in subsequent chapters will, for lack of a better term, be designated as a "reading" of issues of wealth and poverty in the third gospel and Acts. Having chosen a suitable term to describe the character of this dissertation, I will now attempt to clarify the reading strategy to be used in the subsequent chapters.

Devising a Framework for Empirical Study

Although Iser insisted that his theory of the reading process was not a method for reading, he did believe that this theory provided a basis from which critics could "devise a framework for mapping out and guiding empirical studies of reader reaction.,,132 This dissertation will now attempt to devise such a framework to serve as a guide for reading issues of wealth and poverty in the third gospel and Acts.

This dissertation will attempt to lift the elements of the reading process to the level of consciousness for the sake of critical analysis. By drawing upon Iser's categories of textual perspectives and of consistency-building, this dissertation will attempt to present an orderly account of the reader's responses to

130 Although Iser, Act of Reading, 54, often speaks of "meaning" and "meanings," he suggested that "if the reader and the literary text are partners in a process of communication, and if what is communicated is to be of any value, our primary concern will no longer be the meaning of that text (the hobbyhorse ridden by critics of yore) but its effect" (emphasis Iser's).

131 "The Ethics of Interpretation or What's Left Over After the Elimination of Meaning," SBLSP, ed. David J. Lull (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988),70. For an overview of the manner in which "meaning" has been understood in the various types of gospel criticism, see Werner H. Kelber, "Gospel Narrative and Critical Theory," BTB 18 (1988): 130-36.

132 Iser, Act ofReading, x. 80 the text as he seeks to create a consistent reading of issues of wealth and poverty within the third gospel and Acts.

The reading strategy will be to identify, as much as is possible, how the reader's efforts of consistency-building deal with the textual perspectives on two levels. 133 On one level, this dissertation will attempt to identify what the reader sees as the determinate elements within the text, where the reader feels compelled by the text to make particular interpretive connections and associations. The purpose of presenting this level of consistency-building is to lift to consciousness the reader's unconscious processes of selection and actualization. On this level, the dissertation will be particularly attentive to the external frames of reference which the reader senses are being developed by the various elements of the repertoire and to the textual strategies which help the reader organize internal frames of reference for relating the various elements of the repertoire to one another. Yet while attempting to identify the decisions which go into the reader's consistency-building, the dissertation will also note the alien associations which inevitably haunt (and perhaps temporarily thwart) the reader's consistency­ building efforts even at this level.

In addition to identifying the reader's consistency-building efforts on this first level where the reader senses interpretive guidance from the text, this dissertation will also simultaneously attempt to identify the reader's consistency­ building efforts on a second level where the reader finds indeterminacies or gaps within the text's interpretive guidance. On this level, this dissertation will attempt to identify how the reader's consistency-building develops at those points where the reader is faced with inadequate connections between seemingly competing textual ideals (blanks) and where the reader confronts the negation of seemingly acceptable ideals within the texts.

1J3 As noted earlier, when I speak of the text or textual perspectives I mean the text or textual perspectives as I see it or them. The qualification "as I see it (them)" is always assumed, even when unstated. 81 In essence, this dissertation will attempt to slow down the sequential reading process and to draw upon the categories of Iser's theory both to identify the character of the interpretive decisions being made and to serve as a framework for presenting those decisions.

Before proceeding to implement the reading strategy which this dissertation has just laid out, one final issue must be addressed: evaluation of my reading. The emphasis which this chapter has placed upon the reader will, no doubt, prompt some biblical scholars to voice concerns about "uncontrollable subjectivism."134 Perhaps Iser's own words may help to alleviate these concerns. Iser suggests that

the critic is the same as any other reader, for through the consistencies that he establishes he tries to grasp the work as a single unit. The moment the critic offers his interpretation he is himself open to criticism, because the structure of the work can be assembled in many different ways. A hostile reaction to his interpretation will indicate that he has not been sufficiently aware of the habitual norms that have oriented his consistency-building. The hostile reader, however, will be in the same position, for his reaction is liable to be dictated by standards that are equally habitual. The difference between the two is that the critic must then seek to explain why his o\vn consistency-building is appropriate to the work in question. 135 Although the appropriateness of this dissertation's consistency-building will be defended in the final chapters of the dissertation, the reading which is being offered is my reading, not the reading of some imaginary or historically reified reader. It will be a good reading if its consistency-building stands up to the scrutiny of the critical community. When asked if the possibility

134 Kuenzli, "Review," 47, suggests that the fear of "uncontrollable subjectivism" has been a leading cause for the "suppression of the reader" among literary critics. The same is, no doubt, true among biblical critics.

135 Iser, Act ofReading, 17. 82 of a "wrong reading" existed, Iser replied, "It is a question of competence.,,136 It will be up to the critical community to decide my competence.

136 Iser, "For the Readers," 25. CHAPTER III

READING THE THIRD GOSPEL

Introduction

This chapter will draw upon the categories provided by Iser's theory of the reading process in order to illustrate how a reader's understanding of issues of wealth and poverty is affected by reading through the third gospel. The specific question being asked in this reading is: How is the reader's understanding of and behavior related to issues of wealth and poverty affected by reading the third gospel? This reading will focus on those passages, which, in the reader's view, most significantly inform tlle reader's answer to the question under consideration. The reading will be pursued sequentially and will be presented wiiliin categories furnished by Iser: establishing initial frames of reference (Luke 1-4); finding and filling gaps (Luke 5-8); encountering negations (Luke 9-14); and bringing closure to the reading (Luke 15-24).

Initial Frames of Reference (Luke 1-4)

Allusions to issues of wealth and poverty appear early in ilie iliird gospel, even within the first chapter. Yet the reading process cannot begin by skipping to the points where references to these specific issues appear. Railier the reader must begin at the beginning of the narrative in order to become sensitive to the narrative's various frames of reference. After the initial frames of 84 references have been recognized and explored, the reader may move more quickly over those portions of the narrative which have little or no direct bearing on issues of wealth and poverty. With this need for sensitivity to the narrative's initial frames of references in mind, this reading of issues of wealth and poverty will begin by examining the preface to the third gospel and the important points within the speeches of the characters who open the narrative.

A) The Preface (Luke 1:1-4)

When focusing attention upon the preface of the third gospel the reader is wise to heed William Kurz's caution that this "vaguely stated" preface can only be interpreted "in light of what the [subsequent] narrative actually does.'" The preface cannot be the sole, or even primary, basis upon which one develops a reading of the third gospe1. 2 The preface does, however, provide the reader with

I William S. Kurz, Reading LlIke-Acts: Dynamics of Biblical Narrative (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1993),40. Critical readers of the Lukan narratives are divided in their opinions as to which "narrative" the preface of the third gospel applies-

2 Schuyler Brown's "The Role of the Prologues in Determining the Purpose of Luke­ Acts," Perspectives on Luke-Acts, ed. Charles H. Talbert (Danville: Association of Baptist Professors of Religion, 1978), 99-111, demonstrates how the preface(s) of Luke (and Acts) may 85 some initial guidance for setting up both external and internal frames of reference. Most importantly, the preface to the third gospel orients the reader to three frames of reference which influence how issues of wealth and poverty are understood in the third gospel.

First, the preface introduces the reader to the external frame of reference assumed by Greco-Roman historiography. In keeping with the practices of historians in the Greco-Roman world, the implied author of the third gospel mentions the existence of other accounts and, in an implied comparison with those other accounts, stresses the validity of his own sources (traditions stemming from eyewitnesses), tlle scope of his knowledge (acquaintance with all things from the beginning), and the coherence (orderliness) of his presentation.3 By thus conforming to the literary conventions of Greco-Roman historiography in its preface,4 the third gospel has alerted the reader that the text

be read in support of each of the most commonly suggested explanations of the "purpose" for Luke's writings(s).

3 On the third gospel's conformity to the canons of ancient preface writing, see Luke Timothy Johnson, The Gospel of Luke, SP 3 (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1991),29. Fitzmyer, Gospel According to Luke, 289, notes that the third gospel begins "with a claim that rivals the boast of any historian. Three qualities are claimed for his investigation, completeness, accuracy, and thoroughness (,from the beginning'); and another for his composition, order (' systematical! y')."

4 On the consensus opinion that the preface to the third gospel is consistent with the genre of history, see, for example, Terrance Callan, "The Preface to Luke-Acts and Historiography," NTS 31 (1985): 576-81; Fitzmyer, Gospel According to Luke, 287-89; r. Howard Marshall, Luke: Historian and Theologian (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1970),53-76; Johnson, Gospel of Luke, 3- 10; Eduard Schweizer, The Good News According to Luke, tr. David E. Green (Atlanta: John Knox, 1984), 10; Schmithals, Das Evangelium des Lukas, 17; Kurz, Reading Luke-Acts, 39-40; Darrell L. Bock, Luke, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994-96),52-53; Alfred Plummer, The Gospel According to S. Luke, ICC (London: T & T Clark, 1891), 1-3; Ellis, 64; NoUand, Luke, 4-5; and Schmid, 43. Cf. Loveday Alexander, The Preface to Luke's Gospel: Literary Convention and Social Context in Luke 1.1-4 and Acts 1.1, SNTSMS 78 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993) and Vernon K. Robbins, "Prefaces in Greco-Roman Biography and Luke-Acts," PRS 6 (1979): 94-108. 86 may be expected to incorporate at least some of the norms of Greco-Roman culture within its repertoire. 5

Second, the preface alludes to the external frame of reference of early Christianity. The preface assures the reader that the third gospel provides a reliable Christian witness. Although a certain degree of historical reliability was implied within the genre of ancient historiography,6 the preface of the third gospel accentuates not only the narrative's historical reliability, but also its reliability as Christian proclamation. Thus the implied author adopts the language of Christian eschatology when speaking of the things which have been "fulfilled" (by Godf and even provides the narrative with the self-designation

8l~YTlcrlS (v.l), which connotes the idea of Christian proclamation (Luke 8:39; Acts 9:27, 12:17).8 Given the appropriation of such Christian themes \\rithin the preface, the reader is drawn to the conclusion that the instruction (KaTT)X~eT]S, vA), which Theophilus had received and which the third gospel now seeks to expand, was instruction in Christian traditions as preserved by the "many.,,9 Although the third gospel never directly criticizes the many other accounts, it does assert the validity of its own narrative structure for these common traditions (and William Kurz is probably correct to assert that the implied author claims an

10 "original plotting" of the gospel narrative ). Yet the primary basis for the third

S "The Third Gospel from its very outset betrays the author's intention of relating his work consciously to contemporary literature of the Greco-Roman world." Fitzmyer, Gospel According to Luke, 287. Nolland, Luke, 11, however, overstates the case by arguing for the "studied secularity of the preface."

6 On the implied author of the third gospel as an ancient historian and the criteria appropriate for evaluating the reliability of an ancient historian, see Erhardt GUttgemanns, "In welchem Sinne ist Lukas 'Historiker?'" LB 54 (1983): 9-24.

7 On the importance of the theological passive, see 1. J du Plessis, "Once More: The Purpose of Luke's Prologue (Lk 1 1-4)," NovT 16 (1974): 263-65.

• See Dillon, "Previewing Luke's Project," 208-09.

9 See Schmid, 47.

10 Kurz, Reading Luke-Acts, 41. 87 gospel's claim to be reliable Christian proclamation is not merely (or even primarily) the implied author's superior presentation of the earlier traditions. Rather the third gospel asserts that the validity of its sources, traditions stemming back to the original "eyewitnesses" and "ministers of the word" (v.2), provides the primary basis for the third gospel's validity as Christian proclamation. lI The preface makes no claims to novelty of content. On the contrary, it emphasizes the third gospel's fidelity to the authoritative traditions of the Christian faith, thus supplementing the external frame of reference of Greco-Roman historiography, which was discussed earlier, with the external frame of reference of early Christianity.

Third, the preface helps the reader to develop an internal frame of reference by locating the implied author's place in relation to the time of the narrative. The preface demonstrates the implied author's awareness of the historical distance between himself and the events which he narrates. 12 The implied author consciously sets himself outside of the time of the earlier "eyewitnesses" and "ministers of the word." Instead of standing with these prior generations, the implied author stands with his readers as those to whom the message was later delivered ("us" vv. 1, 2).13 Thus in the preface of the third

II Rainer Dillman's "Das Lukasevangelium als Tendenzschrift: Leserlenkung und Leseintention in Lk 1,1-4," BZ 38 (1994): 93, argues that the narrator gives the third gospel a "quasi canonical ring" by appealing to authorities for which both the implied author and implied reader held respect. Dillman argues that the third gospel "stands at the beginning of a churchly instruction." "Eyewitnesses" and "ministers of the word" are generally regarded as parallel designations for the same group of people. E.g., Johnson, Gospel ofLuke, 28; Ellis, 65; Fitzmyer, Gospel According to Luke, 294; Schiirmann, 9; and Marshall, Gospel of Luke, 42. There is, however, no grammatical reason to assume that the groups are identical. See Bock, Luke, 58.

12 See Joseph B. Tyson's "The Birth Narratives and the Beginnings of Luke's Gospel," Semeia 52 (1990): 110-11.

n Many redaction critics have analyzed Luke 1:1-4 in order to determine how many different "layers" of tradition Luke assumes to exist between the events narrated in the third gospel and Luke's own time, but the preface to the third gospel is not well suited to such analysis. The preface is unclear, for example, about whether Luke regarded the "many" other accounts to be contemporary with his own writing or if these other accounts represented an earlier "layer" of 88 gospel, the implied author speaks as a first person narrator who stands with his reader in a later time than that of the narrative. Even though this first person narrator, the histor, is replaced by an omniscient third person narrator for the remainder of the third gospel,14 the implied author's temporal separation from the events being narrated will be instructive for the reader's internal frame of reference.

Although the preface to the third gospel has not directly addressed issues of wealth and poverty, it has begun to provide the reader with internal and external frames of reference. The external frames of reference, which are beginning to shape the repertoire, are those of "cultured" Greco-Roman society and of early Christianity.ls The internal frame of reference, which is beginning to shape the textual strategies, is the implied author's consciousness of his temporal distance from the events being narrated.

B) The Birth and Childhood Narratives (Luke 1 :5-2:52)

The birth and childhood narratives introduce the reader to another external frame of reference, that of Jewish piety.16 Although figures from the Greco­ Roman political order (Herod, 1:5; Caesar Augustus, 2:1; and Quirinius, 2:2) are still used to locate the narrative in time, the social world of the birth and

tradition upon which Luke possibly was dependent. For conflicting, though equally plausible analyses and conclusions, see Robert H. Stein, "Luke 1:1-4 and Traditionsgeschichte," JETS 26 (1983): 428; Dillon, "Previewing Luke's Project," 210; and Schmithals, Lukas, 17.

14 On the narrator's role changing from histor to omniscient third person narrator, see Kurz, Reading Luke-Acts, 42-43.

15 "Luke bridges the gap bet\veen himself and his readers in the manner of a cultured contemporary." Schweizer, 10.

16 A number of critical readers have questioned whether the first nvo chapters of the third gospel were added to the third gospel after the completion (pUblication?) of the rest of the narrative. On the state of the question, see Tyson, "Birth Narratives," 103-20. The question is not relevant to this reading. 89 childhood narratives is entirely Jewish. The Jewish milieu of the narratives is forcefully displayed both by the narrator and the characters. I7

The narrator incorporates a Jewish frame of reference into the third gospel in several ways. First, the narrator not only chooses Jewish-and only Jewish­ characters within the narrative, but he also depicts these persons as exemplary Jews. Zacharias and Elizabeth are introduced as a priest and a daughter of Aaron whose piety is "blameless" (UJlEJl1TOL, 1:6) according to the law of the Lord.

Simeon is described as a "righteous and devout" (OlKaLOS" KaL EUAa~1)S", 2:25) man who is waiting for the consolation of Israel. Anna is described as remaining continuously in the temple, fasting and offering up prayers (2:37). Second, the narrator chooses traditional Jewish settings. In fact, much of the first two chapters of the third gospel is set in and around the temple in Jerusalem (1:5- 25, 57-79 and 2:22-38, 41-50).18 The remaining portions of the first two chapters are set in the Jewish territories of Galilee (1:26-38 and 2:39-40,51-52), Judah (1 :39-56) and Judea (2:1-20). Third, the narrator specifically quotes from the Septuagint (2:23-24) and quite likely makes a deliberate effort to imitate the Greek style of the Septuagint throughout Luke 1 :5_2:52. 19

17 In addition to the Jewish aspects of the text that are discussed below, see Paul Winter, "The Cultural Background of the Narrative in Luke 1 and II," JQR 45 (1954): 159-67, 230-42, 287.

IS James M. Dawsey's "The Origin of Luke's Positive Perception of the Temple," PRS 18 (I 991): 5-22, has argued that the portrayal of the temple in the first two chapters of the third gospel is so positive that it is inconsistent with the portrayal of the temple and Judaism in the rest of the third gospel. Dawsey suggests that this inconsistency is due to Luke's reliance upon sources in the first two chapters of the gospel that predate any Christian grievances with Jews. He argues that the first two chapters of the third gospel incorporate sources which predate the gospel of Mark and "Q," which he assumes to be the primary sources for the rest of the third gospel.

19 Imitating the literary style of an earlier writer or document (like the LXX) was a common practice in the Greco-Roman world. On Luke's probable imitation of Septuagint Greek, see Fearghus O'Fearghail, "The Imitation of the Septuagint in Luke's Infancy Narrative," PIBA 12 (1989): 58-78. Cf. Stephen Farris, The Hymns of Luke's Infancy Narratives, JSNTSup 9 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985),31-62 and William G. Most, "Did St Luke Imitate the Septuagint?" The Synoptic Gospels, ed. Craig A. Evans and Stanley Porter (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995),215-26. 90 The actions and words of the characters also reflect a Jewish frame of reference. Zacharias is serving as a priest in the temple when visited by the angel who announces the approaching birth of Zacharias' son (1 :8-20). After having his son circumcised (1:59) Zacharias praises the God ofIsrael for being faithful to the house of David and to the Abrahamic promises (1 :68-79). Mary likewise has her son circumcised on the eighth day (2:21) and then undergoes purification as required by the law (2:22). She follows up by offering the sacrifice which the law required after the birth of a firstborn son (2:23-24). She, Joseph and Jesus also are found attending the feast of the Passover (2:41-50). And Mary's words, like those of Zacharias and Simeon (2:29-32), praise God for God's action toward Israel (l :54). Evidence of this Jewish frame of reference could be continued, but the essential point has been demonstrated. The birth and childhood narratives introduce the reader to another frame of reference, that of Jewish piety.

It is in the midst of this very Jewish milieu that the first subtle references to issues of wealth and poverty appear in the third gospel. In Mary's "magnificat," she contrasts the "rich" who have been sent away empty, with the "hungry," who have been filled with good things (1 :53).20 The problem, however, is determining exactly what "rich" means in the context of the magnificat with its "density of symbolism.,,2! The eschatological reversal of fortunes was a common theme in Jewish writings and it appears throughout the third gospel,22 but the reader must begin the consistency-building process by deciding whether to interpret the "hungry" and the "rich" literally or

20 The verbs are aorist even though the context indicates a future action. "As is often the case in the Old Testament, the future acts of God are viewed as already accomplished." Ellis, 76.

21 Johnson, Gospel a/Luke, 43.

22 See Robert C. Tannehill, "The Magnificat as Poem," JBL 93 (1974): 270-75; John O. York, The Lost Shall Be First, JSNTSup 46 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991); and Larry Drake, "The Reversal Theme in Luke" (Ph.D. diss., St. Louis University, 1985). 91 metaphorically.23 Should the "rich" be interpreted as a literal description of those with significant financial resources or should the "rich" be interpreted as a metaphorical designation for those who trust in their own resources and capabilities?24 Should the "hungry" be interpreted as those who lack food or as those who greatly desire God and God's intervention in human affairs? Because the preceding verses emphasize human attitudes (pride and humility, vv. 51-52) and not physical possessions or conditions, a tentative decision is made in favor of a metaphorical reading.25 Although the textual strategies are unclear as this point, the repertoire's "very Jewish concept of soteriology,,26 helps the reader to form a gestalt, albeit an open gestalt, which interprets the terms "rich" and "hungry" as metaphorical designations which help to connote the character of an impending age in which God's rule will be complete.27

Having made a tentative selection of meaning in favor of a metaphorical reading of "rich" and "hungry" (1 :53), the reader is immediately faced with a challenge to that decision when Mary and Joseph use pigeons in their sacrifice (2:24). Although the third gospel does not highlight the fact, pigeons

23 Many readers find both literal and symbolic connotations within the third gospel's use of these terms. E.g., Marshall, Gospel a/Luke, 85; Plummer, 33; and Bock, Luke, 158.

24 Even interpreting this terminology against the background of the "pious poor" (the anawim, who supposedly have their ideological roots in the OT), does not resolve the issue of whether to read the economic designations in a literal or metaphorical manner. See Raymond E. Brown, The Birth a/the Messiah (Garden City: Doubleday, 1977),350-55, espeCially 351.

2S Similarly, Nolland, Luke, 72, explains that "the Magnificat is a soteriological statement in traditional terms and reflects on poverty and riches solely within that framework." Cf. Robert McAfee Brown, Unexpected News: Reading the Bible with Third World Eyes (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1984), 74-81 and Carlos Escudero Freire, Devolver el Evangelio a los Pobres, Bibloteca de Estudios Biblicos 19 (Salamanca: Ediciones Sigueme, 1978), 192-94.

26 In regard to the hymns in 1:57-79,2:13-14 and 2:28-32, Brown, Birth a/the Messiah, 353, notes: "There is no profound christology in these hymns, only a very Jewish concept of soteriology." In addition to the Jewish soteriological concepts apparent in the first two chapters of the third gospel, there are also parallels to traditionally Jewish literary forms, particularly to the OT psalms. See Farris, Hymns, 67-98 and Freire, 187-89.

27 Note a similar soteriological use of these economic terms in Hannah's prayer of thanksgiving for the gift of her son, Samuel (I Sam. 2:1-10, especially vv. 3, 5, 7-8). 92 were not the standard sacrifice to be offered upon the birth of a firstborn son. Rather pigeons were an alternative sacrifice for those who were unable to afford the usual sacrificial animals (Lev 12:18).28 Although alien associations are raised by Mary's and Joseph's use of this alternative sacrificial animal, these alien associations are not sufficient to overturn the reader's emerging gestalt in favor of interpreting "rich" and "hungry" in a metaphorical sense. However, they do prevent the closure of that gestalt. Even though a metaphorical reading of "rich" and "hungry" has been selected, other more literal readings, which remain virtual at this point in the reading process, may eventually be reconsidered.

C) The Ministry ofJohn the Baptist (Luke 3:1-21)

When introducing the adult life of John the Baptist the narrator again establishes the temporal setting by referring to political figures from the Greco­ Roman world (3:1), but he also mentions the prominent Jewish leaders of the time (3:2). The external frames of reference are neither supplemented nor significantly modified. The repertoire established in the first two chapters is extended into the third chapter where John's adult life becomes the focus of the narrative. The verses from Isaiah which the narrator incorporates into his introduction of John (3:4-6) echo the soteriological themes of the infancy narratives (1:46-55, 68-79, and 2:29-32)29 and the fact that these verses are clearly metaphorical (flattening out of mountains) adds further support to the metaphorical reading selected earlier for the terms "rich" and "hungry."

28 See Nolland, Luke, 118.

29 "The references in the birth narrative to preparing the Lord's ways and to God's salvation for all peoples were anticipations (in the order of the narrative) and reminiscences (for those acquainted with Scripture) of the Isaiah quotation in Luke 3 :4-6. The importance of this quotation to the narrator is shown by the anticipations of it in the birth narrative." Robert C. TarmehiIl, The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts: A Literary Interpretation, vol. I, The Gospel According to Luke (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986),47. 93 The economic implications of reading the third gospel become an explicit theme for the reader (and the metaphorical language of the earlier chapters moves to the horizon) when John is asked about the appropriate response to his message of repentance. John, a reliable character whose prophetic role has already been established by an angel (1: 13-17), is questioned three times30 about the appropriate response to his sharp message (3: 10-14). Each question is essentially the same, "What shall we do?" (vv. 10, 12, 14).31 Although the questions themselves have no overt economic implications, John answers each question in largely economic terms.

The question is first asked by the "crowds" (OXAOt, v. 10) and John requires them to share their clothes and food with those who have none (v. 11).32 The question is next asked by toll collectors (v. 12)33 and John tells them to collect

30 These verses appear only in the third gospel. The source from which Luke drew them is widely debated. Most scholars favor the idea that these verses stem from Luke's unique material (e.g., Fitzmyer, Gospel According to Luke, 464; Johnson, Gospel of Luke, 66-67; Schmithals, Lukas, 52; Nolland, 147; Petzke, 69; and Schweizer, 71), but others suggest that the material stems from Q (e.g., Marshall, Gospel of Luke, 142 and Schiirrnann, 169) or even from Matthew (W. Wilkens, "Die Tauferliberlieferung des Matthaus und ihre Verarbeitung durch Lukas," NTS 40 [19941: 542-57). In this and every case, this dissertation will refrain from making judgments about the hypothetical sources behind the third gospel. In my opinion, the complexity of the synoptic problem precludes relying upon any particular theory of literary dependence as an interpretive device fur the third gospel. See Joseph B. Tyson, "Source Criticism of the Gospel of Luke," Perspectives on Luke-Acts, 24-39 and Bock, Luke, 914-17.

" Although John's rhetoric is harsh, Fitzmyer, Gospel According to Luke, 464, is correct to note that it is "to be understood against the OT background of prophetic teaching." Also see Bock., Luke, 304-08.

32 John's response to this question was crucial to Wolfgang Stegemann's claim (considered in chapter one of this dissertation, 20-26) that the third gospel advocates an "equalization of property." See Jesus and the Hope of the Poor, tr. Matthew O'Connell (New York: Orbis, 1986), 106-09.

3J Tax collectors, persons who collected taxes from the population at large, did not exist in first century Palestine. Only toll collectors, persons who collected tolls on commercial transactions, existed in the first century. See John R. Donahue, "Tax Collectors and Sinners," CEQ 33 (1971): 39-61. E. H. Schemer's "The Social Ethics of the Lucan Baptist (Lk 3:10-14)," Neat 24 (1990): 21-35, argues that the third gospel is concerned for the welfare of all "underdogs" and that the economic implications of John's teachings are subordinate to the social implications, that is, to John's concern "for rich toll-collectors or soldiers who are social outcasts" (35, emphasis added). 94 no more than is due them (v. 13). Finally, the question is asked by soldiers (v. 14)34 and they are told to extort (OWo"ELW) money from no one and to be content with their wages. 35

Although the question is answered differently each time it is put to John, all of the answers are, as has often been noted, entirely consistent with traditional first century Jewish expectations as developed from the Septuagint, particularly the prophets.36 The Baptist's requirements, as represented in the third gospeV7 are less severe than those of the Qumran community /8 but affirm the traditional Jewish values of generosity toward those in need (sharing food and clothes) and refraining from greed (taking no more than is due and being content with wages).

The reader is thus comfortable with the repertoire of the text, that of traditional Judaism in the Greco-Roman world, and is beginning to sense a textual strategy developing. The third gospel draws upon traditional Jewish soteriological language, including language laden with economic metaphors, in

Although toll collectors and soldiers were unpopular in Greco-Roman Palestine, a concern for "outcasts" has not been a theme in the narrative to this point The main characters have been associated with the central elements of Jewish life.

34 Marshall, Gospel of Luke, 143, notes that this question, which is the only one of the three to provide a subject for the verb, "may convey the undertone, 'What shall we do--even we (Kal ijP.ElS) whose calling is especially out of keeping with Jewish piety?,"

35 A Roman origin is possible for this saying because Roman writers often commented about soldiers revolting over discontentment with their wages. See Brent Kinman, "Luke's Exoneration ofJohn the Baptist," JT.S' 44 (1993): 595-98.

36 "His [John's] counsel is wholly intelligible in terms of Palestinian or OT backgrounds." Fitzmyer, Gospel According to Luke, 465. Also see Nolland, Luke, 149; SchUnnann, 168; and Schmid, 143.

37 On the character of John's historical ministry, see Paul Hollenbach, "Social Aspects of John the Baptizer's Preaching Mission in the Context of Palestinian Judaism," ANRW 19.2 (1979): 850-75.

3S See Marshall, Gospel of Luke, 142-43. Also note that Matthew's and Mark's descriptions of John's ascetic apparel and diet (Matt 3:4 and Mark 1:6) are not preserved in the third gospel. 95 order to confirm the importance of the messianic event which has been announced. The metaphorical nature of the economic nomenclature is clarified by the subsequent dialogue. Dialogue between a reliable character and the minor characters clarifies the largely metaphorical character of this economic language and impedes an overly literal appropriation of the nomenclature's economic connotations. The repertoire, both in its terminology and values, is consistent with traditional Jewish thought. The strategy is to clarify the ambiguous language of traditional Jewish soteriology by offering dialogue which affirms traditional rather than revolutionary ethical ideals.

D) The Beginning of Jesus' Ministry (Luke 3:22-4:44)

After recording Jesus' baptism and genealogy, the narrator continues with the story of Jesus' pre-public adult life by presenting an account of Jesus' temptation. Although the temptation account does not directly address issues of wealth and poverty, it does provide further closure to the reader's metaphorical reading of the language in the magnificat. In the magnificat, Mary announced that God had filled the "hungry" with good things (1:53). Now the narrator tells the reader that Jesus had not eaten in 40 days and was "hungry" (4:2). Yet in spite of his obvious physical hunger, Jesus spurned the notion that his most pressing need was for physical food. Quoting the Septuagint, he says, "A person shall not live by bread alone" (4:4; cf. Deut 8:36).39 In Jesus' depreciation of the urgency of fulfilling literal physical hunger,the reader sees the reemergence of the textual strategy employed earlier where the comments of a reliable character clarify the implications of the ambiguous language appropriated from Jewish soteriological hopes (3 :4-6, 10-14).

39 Matthew adds: "but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God" (4:4). 96 By the time the language of poverty again appears in the narrative (4:18),40 the reader is not surprised to find it embedded in yet another quotation from the Septuagint (Isa 61:1-2,58:6).41 The Old Testament quotation, assembled using the Jewish exegetical technique of gezerah shawah, links together two scriptures based upon their use of a common catch word. 42 The catchword in this case, a¢EaLS'·from Isaiah 61 and 58, has appeared twice previously in the third gospel to refer to the forgiveness of sins (1:77, 3:3). The unifying theme of this quotation is forgiveness. 43 The language of preaching good news to the poor is, along with the language of releasing captives, giving sight to the blind and liberating the oppressed, therefore, quickly taken metaphorically44 in light of the

40 Luke 4: 16-30 are often considered programmatic for the third gospel. The best survey of recent literature on the passage is Christopher 1. Schreck's "The Nazareth Pericope," L 'Evangile de Lue, ed. F. Neirynck, rev. ed. (Leuven: Peeters, 1989),399-471. Also see Jerome Kodell, "Luke's Gospel in a Nutshell (4:16-30)," BTB 13 (1983): 16-18 and Hugh Anderson, "Broadening Horizons," Int 17 (1964): 259-75.

41 The Lukan Jesus inteIjects the phrase "to let the oppressed go free" from Isa 58:6 into the quotation from Isa 61: 1-2. He also omits the note of judgment, "the day of vengeance of our God," in his quotation of Isa 61:1-2. Heinrich Baarlink's "Ein gnadiges Jahr des Herrn-und Tage der Vergeltung," ZNW 73 (1982): 204-20, suggests that the Lukan Jesus leaves any note of vengeance out of his message until after the Jews ultimately reject his message of grace. Then he introduces vengeance into his message (21 :22).

42 See Charles A. Kimball, "Jesus' Exposition of Scripture in Luke 4:16-30," PRS 21 (1994): 188-93 and B. J. Koet, '''Today This Scripture Has Been Fulfilled in Your Ears:' Jesus' Explanation of Scripture in Luke 4: 16-30," Five Studies on Interpretation of Scripture in Luke­ Aets (Leuven: University Press, 1989), 30.

4) "The term Cicj>EO'lS' appears five times in the Gospel of Luke (1,77; 3,3; 4,18bis and 24,47; see also the verb in 5,20-24) and five times in Acts (2,38; 5,31; 10,43; 13,38; 26,18). Except 4,18 it is always used in the combination 'remission of sins.'" Koet, 34. Also see James A. Sanders, "Isaiah in Luke," Luke and Scripture (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1993), 21 and S. Sabugal, "La Embajada Mesiiinica del Bautista (Mt 11,2-6-Lc 7,18-23)," Augustinianum 4 (1974): 5-39, especially 37.

44 Many critical readers likewise suggest a spiritual or non-literal understanding of "poor" in this pericope. E.g., Walter Dietrich, "' ... den Armen das EvangeJium zu verkilnden, '" 12 41 (1985): 31-43; Patrick Miller, "Luke 4:16-21," Int 29 (1975): 417-21; George E. Rice, "Luke's Thematic Use of the Call of Discipleship," AUSS 19 (1981): 51-58; and "Luke 4:31-44: Release of Captives," AUSS 20 (1983): 23-28. Many others suggest that the word's primary referent is non­ literal even though some connotations of literal poverty persist. E.g., Nolland, Luke, 197; Johnson, Gospel of Luke, 79; Guillermo Garlatti, "Evangelizacion y Liberacion de los Pobres: Lucas 4,16-21," RevistB 49 (1987): 1-15; 1. Sabourin, "'Evangelize the Poor' (Lk 4:18)," RSB I 97 gestalt formed by reading earlier portions of the narrative. The reader's impulse to maintain consistency by selecting a metaphorical reading is validated by the content of Jesus' first sermon, a single sentence consisting of the assertion, "Today, this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing" (4:21).45 The fact that Jesus was willing to pronounce Isaiah's prophecy fulfilled even though none of its major provisions had yet been literally completed provides the reader with an even greater degree of confidence in his metaphorical reading of the economic language which has thus far appeared in the third gospel.

The reader is developing a growing confidence that the ambiguous soteriological language which the narrator appropriates from the Septuagint, including economic language, is clarified by characters' words. Thus the reader is not surprised to find that when Jesus discusses the meaning of his sermon text, he illustrates the divine freedom to favor whomever God wishes by pointing toward persons from both impoverished and affluent economic circumstances, a (presumably) poor vvidow and the (presumably) wealthy Naaman

(1981): 101-09; Bock, Luke, 408; and Pieter G. R. de Villiers, "The Gospel and the Poor," Liberation Theology and the Bible (Pretoria: University of South Africa, 1986), 45-76. Relatively few readers understand the "poor" as a literal economic characterization. E.g., Rainer Albertz, "Die' Antrittspredigt' Jesu im Lukasevangelium auf ihrem alttestamentlichen Hintergrund," ZNW 74 (1983): 182-206 and Brown, Unexpected News, 89-104.

4S With this statement, Jesus announced that the definitive time of salvation had come in his prophetic ministry. On Jesus as prophet in the third gospel, see Carlos Escudero Freire, "Jesus Profeta, Liberatador del Hombre," EE 51 (1976): 463-96 and Luke Timothy Johnson, The Literary Function ofPossessions in Luke-Acts, SBLDS 39 (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1977). A number of readers have suggested that the third gospel presents Jesus' ministry as an enactment of the year of jubilee as described in the Old Testament. E.g., Robert B. Sloan, The Favorable Year of the Lord (Austin: Schola, 1977); H. J. B. Combrink, "The Structure and Significance of Luke 4:16-30," Neot 7 (1973): 27-47; Sharon H. Ringe, "Luke 4:16-44: A Portrait of Jesus as Herald of God's Jubilee," Proceedings of the Eastern Great Lakes Biblical Society 1 (1981): 73-84; George Mangatt, "The Acceptable Year of the Lord eLk. 4:16-30)," BB 9 (1983): 179-86; and Paul Hertig, "The Mission of the Messiah and the Year of Jubilee" (Th.M. Thesis, Fuller Theological Seminary, 1989). This suggestion is implausible for two reasons. First, the third gospel does not draw directly from the Pentateuchal traditions, especially Lev 25: 10-18, where the jubilee are most clearly presented. Instead, the third gospel draws most of its imagery from the prophetic books. Second, 8eKTOS- ("acceptable" 4: 19) is not used in association with the jubilee in the LXX. See Johnson, The Gospel ofLuke, 79. 98 the Syrian (4:25_27).46 The emphasis is upon the acknowledgement of pressing needs, not upon economic status. 47 Thus when Jesus is later impelled to expand his mission, he avoids language with economic connotations, insisting that he must preach the gospel, not just to the poor, but to "other cities" (4:43).

Finding and Filling Gaps (Luke 5-8)

The opening chapters of the third gospel provided the reader with the initial frames of references necessary for understanding the narrative. The repertoire presented the external frames of reference necessary for orienting oneself in relation to the text; the textual strategies provided the internal frames of reference necessary for relating the text's various perspectives to one another. The most important of these strategies was the use of the words and deeds of reliable characters to clarify the ambiguities inherent within the economic nomenclature of the repertoire's Jewish soteriological imagery.

Up to this point in the reading process, the reader, therefore, has determined that the third gospel's economic nomenclature, which is largely adopted from the Septuagint (primarily Isaiah), serves soteriological rather than ethical (financial) purposes and that ethical exhortations with clear financial implications appear for the first time in the preaching of John the Baptist, when John's preaching demanded generosity toward the needs of others and freedom from personal greed (3:10-14). These tentative decisions about the character of

40 James A. Sanders's "Isaiah in Luke," Luke and Scripture, 23-25, suggests that tile Lukan Jesus was using a traditional mode of Jewish exegesis in which one scripture is interpreted by another. Thus the Lukan Jesus was interpreting Isaiah and its cherished soteriological hopes by the Elijah and Elisha narratives to infer that Israel would be excluded from the fulfillment of its own soteriological hopes Gust as when God visited the non-Israelite widow in Sidon and the non­ Israelite Naaman during the ministry of Elijah and Elisha). This inference, that Israel would be excluded from God's fulfillment of Isaiah's text, explains, in Sander's view, the violent response of the synagogue worshipers.

47 Christopher M. Tuckett's Luke, New Testament Guides (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), 105, takes the reference to the poor widow and the well-to-do Naaman as evidence that the "Lukan community" contained both persons who were poor and who were wealthy. 99 the economic nomenclature and about the ethical (financial) demands promoted by the third gospel in John's preaching are challenged, however, when the reader encounters textual perspectives in the subsequent narrative which do not meet the reader's expectations and which are not easily connected to the reader's emerging gestalt. In the fifth and sixth chapters of the third gospel, the principle of good continuation is violated; the reader faces indeterminacy. While reading the seventh and eighth chapters, however, the reader begins to fill in the gaps created by the unexpected perspectives of the fifth and sixth chapters.

A) Calling of Disciples and Apostles (Luke 5:1-6:16)

The narrative describing the call of Simon, James and John to discipleship (5:1-11) is set against the background of the lake of Gennesaret and the fishing trade of the day. While walking along the shore, Jesus saw two boats48 and a group of fishermen cleaning their nets (v. 2). He got into a boat belonging to Simon in order to teach.49 After teaching from the boat Jesus instructed Simon to let his nets down again (v. 4). Although Simon and his crew were still fatigued from the previous night's fishing expedition, Simon, who had already seen Jesus heal his mother-in-law (4:38-39)/° let down his nets as an expression of confidence in Jesus' word (v. 5). After following Jesus' instructions, the crew of

48 In 5:2, the reading 8uo lTAola is preferred. On the textual variants, see Fitzmyer, Gospel According to Luke, 566 and Marshall, Gospel a/Luke, 202.

49 Klaus Zillessen's "Das Schiff des Petrus und die Gefahrten von andern Schiff," ZNW 57 (1966): 137-39, argues that Simon's ownership of the boat from which Jesus taught symbolizes Peter's role as the legitimate teacher of the message of Christ for later times. According to Zillessen, this account has been shaped by Lukan ecclesiology in keeping with the central role of Peter in Acts. Skepticism about this allegorical reading is justified, see Fitzmyer, Gospel According to Luke, 564.

so Fitzmyer, Gospel According to Luke, 560, calls Peter's confidence in Jesus' word "psychologically plausible" given the earlier healing of Peter's mother-in-law. Similarly, Talbert, Reading Luke, 58-59; Schweizer, 101; and Johnson, Gospel a/Luke, 90-91. 100 Simon's boat caught so many fish51 that they had to summon their partners to bring the other boat to help them retrieve their catch (vv. 5-7). When the second boat arrived it too was filled with fish to the point of nearly sinking. Upon seeing these events, Simon fell down at Jesus' feet and confessed his sinfulness. Then, in what Joseph Fitzmyer calls the "punch line,,52 to the story, Jesus told Simon not to be afraid;53 He would be catching people alive from that time on (vv. 8_10).54

For the reader who has begun to accept the fmancial demands of John the Baptist (3:10-14) as indicative of the ethical norm promoted by the third gospel, the final words of this account are particularly unexpected. When Simon, James and John arrived at the shore, they "left everything and followed" Jesus (v. 11). These three men, unlike those who responded to John's preaching (3:10-14), asked nO questions and received no instructions about what was required from them.55 Yet these three business partners,56 boat owning fishermen capable of

51 This miraculous catch of fish has prompted many interpreters to speculate that this account shares a common source with John 21:1-13. On that possibility, see S. o. Abogunrin, "The Three Variant Accounts of Peter's Call," NTS 31 (J985): 590-94 and Fitzmyer, Gospel According to Luke, 560-62. On possible allusions to Ezekiel 47:8-10, see Josep Rius-Camps, "EI KAI A YT02: en los Encabezamientos," FN2 (1989): 187-92.

52 Both Fitzmyer, Gospel According to Luke, 562, and Nolland, Luke, 220, classify this account as a pronouncement story directed toward Peter's declaration in verse 10.

53 The instruction not to fear (5: 10) prefaced the angelic announcements to Zacharias (1:13), Mary (1:30), and the shepherds (2:10). Its appearance here signifies both the ephiphany­ like character of this experience for Simon and the importance of the statement which follows. See Marshall, Gospelo/Luke, 205.

54 The image of Simon "catching people alive" (';:wype9w) has attracted the attention of many readers. Jindrich Manek's "Fishers of Men," NovT 2 (1975): 138-57, argues that the expression should be understood against the background of ancient cosmological myths so that Simon is imagined to snatch people out of the water which is the mythological enemy of God. But since the water (lake) in this account is not portrayed as ominous or threatening, the expression "catching alive" probably seeks to draw upon the imagery of Simon's vocation as a fisherman without incorporating any of the negative connotations associated with the fishing process. The idea of "catching alive" is substituted for idea of catching and killing (as is the case in fishing). See Rudolf Pesch, "Luke's Formulation of the Saying on the Fishers of Men," BB 2 (1976): 44-59; Marshall, Gospelo/Luke, 206-07; and Schweizer, 105.

55 C. F. Evans, Saint Luke, TPINTC (Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1990), 292. 101 generating significant amounts of wealth for themselves/7 left "everything" (mivTa) when they began following Jesus.

Because this trio "left everything," the reader is faced with the possible negation of the reading of issues of wealth and poverty which he has been developing for the third gospel up to this point. Perhaps the economic nomenclature of the early chapters of the third gospel does infer an economic ethic favorable to the literal poor and self-impoverished. Perhaps possessions do, from the perspective of the third gospel, inhibit one's ability to appropriate the Christian message. Perhaps the literal rich are routinely sent away empty (1:53) and perhaps the literal poor are uniquely targeted as recipients of the gospel (4: 18). Perhaps the text does espouse the ideal of self-impoverishment for the sake of religious fulfillment. In order to create consistency, the reader must struggle with the possibility of revising the tentative conclusions made about the text up to this point in the reading process. At the very least, the reader must devise new ways of connecting the various textual perspectives of the third gospel.

Of course, any revision of emerging gestalten is contingent upon answering the questions of exactly what the disciples left behind and why they left

56 METOX0S' (v. 7) was the technical tenn for a business partner in fishing. See Wilhelm H. Wuellner, The Meaning of 'Fishers of Men,'" NTL (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1967), 23. KOlVWVOl (v.lO) may be synonymous with ~ETOXOS' (Bock, Luke, 460) or it may designate persons who were associated with Simon as something other than full business partners (Plummer, 146).

57 Of the various means of fishing in the Greco-Roman world, fishing with nets from a boat was the most lucrative. This method of fishing was renowned for making the boat owners wealthy. See Wuellner, Fishers of Men, 16-63. Marshall, Gospel of Luke, 202, notes that the parallel account in Mark (I:16-18) portrays Simon as belonging to a poorer class of fishennen who owned no boats. The ability of fishennen to accumulate wealth did not, however, enable fishennen to achieve significant social status. Although all persons who depended upon physical labor to provide their income were regarded as socially inferior by the social and economic elite of the Greco-Roman world, fishennen were viewed with particular disdain. See Sandra R. loshel, Work. Identity and Legal Status at Rome (Nonnan: University of Oklahoma Press, 1992),65-67 and M. I. Finley, The Ancient Economy, 2nd ed. (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985), 42-43. 102 it. The text leaves the answers to both of these questions unformulated

and the reader is left to speculate how the disciples' detachment from "everything" relates to the ethic of generosity and freedom from greed introduced by John the Baptist (3:10-14). The reader is confronted with a blank and is left to formulate a connection between seemingly conflicting textual perspectives. The text allows for the possibility that the disciples left literally everything, all of their possessions and attachments, because such encumbrances were incompatible with their call to discipleship. Perhaps John, who was the forerunner of the Christ (3:15-16), espoused a less stern fmancial ethic than did Jesus, who was the Christ (4:41); perhaps self-impoverishment is an appropriate goal for those who would follow the ChriSt. 58 Or perhaps the disciples' leaving of everything is not primarily an economic statement designed to introduce a fmancial ethic, but rather is an ecclesiological statemenf9 designed to emphasize the decisiveness with which these early disciples "abandon their business,,6o and took on their new vocation.61 Or perhaps Simon, James, and John were, as uniquely called individuals within early Christianity, subject to a more stern ethic than were the anonymous soldiers, toll collectors and crowds to whom John spoke. At this point, the reader's consistency-building has a broad horizon, and numerous possibilities remain open. Appropriate connections can be established only upon further reading as additional textual strategies are identified and used to

S8 David S. Sim's "What About the Wives and Children of the Disciples?" HeyJ 35 (1994): 371-90, raises an interesting extratextual question associated with this reading. He suggests that the hardships imposed upon the wives and children of the disciples would have exceeded the hardships imposed upon the disciples themselves. He speculates that the dependents of the diSCiples would have been forced to rely upon the hospitality of a related adult male for their economic support while the disciples were accompanying Jesus.

S9 E.g., Schiirmann, 266, insists that "das Erzahlunginteresse der Berichtes ekklesiologisch ist."

60 Plummer, 146-47.

6, E.g., "Luke does not lay particular stress on the thought of giving up all to follow Jesus (Mark 1: 18-20): the accent is on v. 10 with its call to mission." Marshall, Gospel of Luke, 206. Similarly, Schiirmann, 264-65; Talbert, Reading Luke, 60-61; and Ellis, 102. 103 draw connections between conflicting textual perspectives and to select between competing readings.

As the reader continues the reading process, gradual reaffirmation of the previously emerging gestalt occurs. Support for a soteriological reading of the economic nomenclature in the early chapters of the third gospel, particularly the earlier suggestion that the quotations from Isaiah in Jesus' inaugural sermon (4:18-19) were assembled around the central theme of forgiveness rather than the themes of literal poverty and hardship, is found within the fifth chapter. Shortly after telling the reader that Simon, James and John left everything and followed Jesus, the narrative shows Jesus using an act of healing to emphasize the centrality of forgiveness to his mission. As he heals a paralytic, Jesus' words clarify his motive for doing so: that the Pharisees may see that he has authority to forgive sins (5:24).62 Then, in contrast to Simon, who had presumably likewise experienced the forgiveness of sins (5:10-11), the healed man does not leave everything and follow Jesus. On the contrary (and in keeping with Jesus' explicit instructions), he takes up his bed and goes home (5:24).

Although the forgiven (and healed) paralytic takes his bed, probably his primary material possession, home with him, in the peri cope immediately following, Levi, a toll collector, leaves63 everything when called to follow Jesus (5:27-28). In Levi's call, as in the call of Simon, James and John, there is no command to leave anything64-although in this account, unlike the account about Simon, James, John, Jesus does command Levi to "follow" him (5:27). After learning of Levi's beginning to follow Jesus, the reader is quickly

62 Evans, Saint Luke, 296, observes that 5:17-26 supplies "the direct fulfillment of 4:18 (to proclaim release-aphesis-to the captives ... )" (emphasis Evans's).

63 The verbs, though both commonly translated "leaving," are different in the two accounts: aEVTES (5:11) and KUTaAl1TWV (5:28). The difference is not significant.

64 Evans, Saint Luke, 305. 104 confronted with a seeming irony because Levi is able to host a great banquet65 in his own home66 even after he has left everything" (5:28_29).67 Levi could have been a "rich Palestinian Jew" who purchased the right to collect to11s 68 or "a subordinate official engaged in the actual collection oftolls,,,69 but in either case, Levi's leaving everything "obviously means left 'everything' in the tollhouse behind; Levi leaves one occupation to take up another.,,70 The "everything," which Levi left, was "his lucrative trade" and not the sum of possessions. 71

Reading the call of Levi provides retrospective insight into the call of Simon, James and John. The "everything" which Levi left was his vocation. It, therefore, becomes plausible in retrospect to conclude that the "everything," which Simon, James and John left, was their vocation. Just as the narrator introduced Levi as a "toll collector," who was "sitting at the tax office" (5:27), he introduced Simon, James, and John as fishermen, who were tending

6$ On the banquet motif in the third gospel, see Dennis E. Smith, "Table Fellowship as a Literary Motif in the Gospel of Luke," JEL 106 (1987): 613-18.

66 Neither Matthew (9:9-10) nor Mark (2: IS) explicitly identify Levi as the host of the banquet like the third gospel does. See Fitzmyer, Gospel According to Luke, 591; Nolland, Luke, 245; and Bock, Luke, 494-95.

67 Not all readers sense irony in the fact that Levi could host a banquet even after he has "left everything." Fitzmyer, Gospel According to Luke, 589, suggests that both Levi's leaving everything and his hosting of a banquet serve to emphasize the thoroughness of his repentance. The emphasis is so strong according to Fitzmyer that "[t]o ask how Levi could have abandoned everything and then provide a banquet to which Jesus was invited is to miss the whole point of the passage. To ask it is to spoil the story!" Asking the question is appropriate, however, if one is attempting to understand the character of Levi's repentance ("leaving everything"). Schilrmann, 287-89, likewise dismisses the irony, insisting that Levi's hosting of a banquet serves primarily as the setting for the subsequent controversy over table fellowship (5:30- 32).

68 Fitzmyer, Gospel According to Luke, 591. Also see Bock, Luke, 494.

69 Marshall, Gospel ofLuke, 219.

70 Fitzmyer, Gospel According to Luke, 590. "Of course, EV T(\ OlKLQ. Q1JTOU means in Levi's house, which in not included in KUTUALTIWV mivTu. He was not at his house when he left all. The miVTu refers to his whole mode of life, his business as TEAWVT)S'." Plummer, 159-60.

71 Marshall, Gospel ofLuke, 217. Also see Bock, Luke, 494. 105 their nets (5:2). In fact, the call of Simon, James and John is replete with references to their vocation. Their boats are mentioned six times (vv. 2, 3, 3, 7, 7, II), their nets four times (vv. 2, 4, 5, 6), their partnership twice (vv. 7, 10), fish twice (vv. 6, 9), and the lake twice (vv. 1, 2). The emphasis upon their vocation,n combined with the emphasis upon Simon's73 new mission ("catching people alive" 5: 10) and the pattern of vocational abandonment in the subsequent narrative (5:27-29), provides the reader with a sufficient basis for concluding that the "everything," which Simon, James and John left, was, as in the case of Levi, a vocation and the things associated with that vocation.

The controversy story that follows the account of Levi's call (5:30-34) also helps to substantiate the earlier suggested soteriological reading of the economic language in the initial chapters of the third gospel. When confronted by the scribes and Pharisees, Jesus is forced to defend his disciples' practice of eating and drinking more than the disciples either of John the Baptist or of the Pharisees, because both of these groups of disciples fast regularly (5:33- 34). Regardless of the religious significance attached to fasting in the third gospel/4 Jesus' disciples are not portrayed as being physically hungry in the third gospel. If the language of privation in the early chapters of the third gospel is interpreted literally, then it becomes difficult to explain why the disciples, the most prominent recipients of Jesus' message, are not portrayed experiencing any such literal privations.

72 "The important point is that in all narratives those called are at work. Similarly, Levi is called from his business." Plummer, 142.

73 "Jesus' words are addressed to Simon alone, in the second sg." Fitzmyer, Gospel According to Luke, 568.

74 Bo Reicke's "Die Fastenfrage nach Luc 5,33-39," 12 30 (1974): 321-28, speculates that the practice of fasting entered the early church through influences other than the practices and teachings of the historical Jesus, possibly through the influence of the gospel writers themselves, or more likely, through the influence of their sources. 106 The reader has established that Simon, James, John and Levi were called to leave their vocations and not the sum of their possessions, but the reader is still not able to create complete consistency between the ethical (financial) norms introduced by John and the actions of Jesus' disciples. Although the reader is now confident that the disciples who followed Jesus did not impoverish themselves or suffer literal privations, the reader is still unable to create concrete connections between the competing textual perspectives. The reader is particularly curious about how the disciples' vocational abandonment may be related to the ethic introduced by John. The reader wonders: Why did these disciples leave their vocations? What motivated their vocational abandonment? From whom is such vocational abandonment desirable? Why did John the Baptist not advocate vocational abandonment, particularly when addressing persons engaged in such questionable vocations as soldiering and toll collecting? Such questions can only be answered by further reading.

B) The Sermon on the Plain (Luke 6: 17-49)

After choosing twelve men from the larger circle of disciples to be apostles (6:13-16),'5 Jesus came down from the mountain76 where he had been

7S Levi, who left everything in order to follow Jesus, is not listed among the apostles. The identification of Levi with Matthew, although deeply rooted in tradition, is not made in the third gospel. See Fitzmyer, Gospel According to Luke, 590-91.

76 Besides the location, on a mountain (Matt 5: 1) or a level place (Torrou rrE8lvoil, Luke 6:17), the opening sections of the sermons on the mount (Matt 5:1-7:29) and on the plain (Luke 6:20-49) differ in at least three other respects. First, Matthew has more beatitudes and no woes. Second, Matthew's beatitudes are stated in third person whereas those of the third gospel are stated in the second person. Third, Matthew includes language which makes the soteriological character of his beatitudes more explicit (e.g., "poor in spirit" 5:3 and "hunger and thirst after righteousness" 5:6). Readers have debated whether the version of the sermon (particularly the beatitudes) in Matthew (e.g., D. F1usser, "Blessed are the Poor in Spirit ..." IE! 10 [1960]: 1-13) or in the third gospel (e.g., Thomas Hoyt, "The PoorlRich Theme in the Beatitudes," JRT37 [1980]: 31-41) has a greater claim to authenticity, but the beatitudes have been so thoroughly reworked by the gospel writers that it is best to withhold judgment (e.g., Hector Borrat, "Las bienaventuranzas y el cambio social," Fe Cristiana y Cambia Social en America Latina [Salamanca: Ediciones Sigueme, 1993],213-29 and Hubert Frankemtille, "Die Markarismus (Mt 5,1-12; Lk 6,20-23)," BZ 15 [1971]: 52-75. 107 alone with the newly chosen apostles and began addressing the other disciples who were waiting on him (6:17, 20). His opening remarks77 contain some of the economic terms which the reader has been struggling to understand:

Blessed are the poor, because the kingdom of God is yours. Blessed are you who hunger now, because you will be filled. 78 . , . But woe to you who are rich, because you have your comfort. Woe to you, who are full now, because you shall hunger (6:20-21,24-25),79 On the basis of these blessings and woes, readers have suggested that "[i]n Luke, Jesus condemns riches outright,"SO that "[i]n the spiritual outlook of St. Luke's Gospel, the only proper use of wealth is to get rid of it, to give it to the poor,,,Sl and that there is an "intense dislike of wealth evident in this Gospel."S2

77 David R. Catchpole's "Jesus and the Community oflsrael-The Inaugural Discourse in Q," BJRL 68 (1986): 296-216, argues that these beatitudes mark the beginning of the hypothetical Q document and that their placement "conforms to the trend in Jewish tradition to position beatitudes at the start or fmish of a literary unit" (298).

18 Various commentators (e.g., Fitzmyer, Gospel According to Luke, 633 and Marshall, Gospel of Luke, 250) have noted the theological passive in 6:21. Schmithals, Lukas, 79-80, suggests that this use of the passive with its implication that God will mete out future reward and punishment is indicative of the apocalyptic background of the beatitudes in the third gospel in contrast to the wisdom background of the beatitudes in Matthew's gospel. Cf. Hans Dieter Betz, "Eschatology in the Sermon on the Mount and the Sermon on the Plain," SBLSP, ed. Kent Harold Richards (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1985),347-49.

79 Against those who, on the basis of the second person form of the beatitude to the poor, argue that the third gospel is addressed to the poor, Kremer, 72, correctly notes that the woe to the rich is also spoken in the second person. Cf. Schweizer, 122 and Bock, Luke, 571.

80 E. 1. Tinsley, The Gospel According to Luke, CBC (Cambridge: University Press, 1965),68.

81 Raymond E. Brown, "The Beatitudes According to Luke," New Testament Essays (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1965),269.

82 Evans, Saint Luke, 333. Evans claims that the synoptic material that is unique to the third gospel is "particularly" disliking of wealth. Similarly, Petzke, 90, suggests that the special Lukan material reflects a consistent criticism of wealth and preference for total renunciation of possessions. 108 Of course, not all readers have been so negative in their readings of these verses. Some readers suggest that these blessings and woes condemn only the attitude of self sufficiency which often accompanies riches83 or, even more positively, that these verses do not condemn the rich but rather warn them of the special dangers and obligations that accompany their possession ofwealth.84

Yet the reader should not, in spite of the common tendency to do so, too quickly transform these declarations of blessing and woe into ethical (financial) exhortations.85 Before determining the ethical implications of the blessings and woes, the reader must carefully consider the frames of reference which the third gospel provides for understanding these blessings and woes, particularly their economic nomenclature. The ethical implications of pronouncing blessings on the "poor" and "hungry" and woes upon the "rich" and "full" (whether these categories are understood as primarily literal (economic) descriptions,86 as primarily spiritual (soteriological) descriptions,87 or as having both literal and

S3 E.g., Marshall, Gospel ofLuke, 256; Johnson, Gospel ofLuke, 108; Nolland, Luke, 282; and F. W. Farrar, The Gospel According to St Luke (Cambridge: University Press, 1910), 138 .

.. E.g., Peter Klein, "Die lukanischen Weherufe Lk 6:24-26," ZNW 71 (\980): 150-59 and Kremer, 73. Similarly, Hans-Werner Bartsch's "Die soziale Aspekt der urchristlichen Pariinese von ihrem Ansatzpunkt her," CV 5 (1962): 255-60, argues that the sermon on the plain is directed toward wealthy unbelievers with the goal of effecting their conversion. Thus, the sermon does not, in his opinion, provide material for developing a community ethic.

os David L. Tiede's "Luke 6:17-26," In! 40 (1986): 63, notes that idealizing poverty is "only another perverse oppression of those who endure it." It should not be assumed that beatitudes and woes are parenetic forms.

S6 E.g., Fitzmyer, Gospel According to Luke, 631; SchUrmann, 329; Johnson, Gospel of Luke, 106; Brown, "Beatitudes," 267-70; Hoyt, "PoorlRich Theme," 31-41; W. R. Domeris, "Biblical Perspectives on the Poor," JTSA 57 (1986): 57-61; Plummer, 179-80; Schweizer, 120; and Chester C. McCown, "The Beatitudes in Light of Ancient Ideals," JBL 46 (1927): 50-6\.

S7 E.g., Hans Kvalbein, "Jesus and the Poor," Themelios 12 (1987): 80-87; Tiede, "Luke 6: 17-26," 63-68; Ellis, 113; Kremer, 72; Talbert, Reading Luke, 70-71; Gary T. Meadors, "The 'Poor' in the Beatitudes of Matthew and Luke," GTJ 6 (1985): 305-14; and Marshall, Gospel of Luke,246. 109 spiritual connotations88) must be inferred in light of the frames of reference discovered up to this point in the reading process.

The reader has discovered that when the third gospel has appropriated economic terms related to wealth and poverty up to this point in the narrative, it has used those terms for soteriological purposes. The soteriological character of such terms has been accentuated by both extemal and intemal frames of reference. First, terms that either denote or connote economic conditions have typically been placed within traditional Jewish literary forms, like hymns (1 :52-53), Septuagint quotations (4:18-19) or, in this case, beatitudes and woes (6:20-26).89 This external frame of reference, with its context of clearly metaphorical language (e.g., filling valleys and flattening mountains, 3:5), provides for the possibility of a soteriological reading of these economic terms. Second, the metaphorical character of such economic nomenclature has typically been reaffirmed when the subsequent words and deeds of reliable characters have rendered an entirely literal reading implausible (e.g., Levi's ability to host a banquet renders a strictly literal reading of his abandonment of "everything" implausible). Thus, internal frames of reference have added increased plausibility to a soteriological reading rendered possible by external frames of reference.

88 E.g., Nolland, Luke, 288. Many of those who understand these tenns primarily in literal tenns emphasize that Jesus was not blessing hunger, persecution, and poverty per se, nor even all persons who suffered these conditions, but rather Jesus was blessing disciples who suffered these conditions. See SchUnnann, 327; H. Esser, "Poor," NIDNTT (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976),2: 824-25; Josef Heer, "Freut Euch, Ihr Annen ..." Die Freude an Gott-unsere Kraft, ed. Johannes Joachim Degenhardt (Stuttgart: Katholisches Verlag, 1989),432-38; Fitzmyer, Gospel According to Luke, 631; Bock, Luke, 571; Hoyt, "PoorlRich Theme," 41; and Schmid, 193.

89 "Fundamentally, however, 'Blessed are the poor' was not within the Greco-Roman world of ideas, and its appearance in the Gospels--whatever one's exegesis of the texts-points to another world or another set of values." Finley, Ancient Economy, 38. On the Jewish roots of the genre of the beatitudes, see C. H. Dodd, "The Beatitudes: A Fonn-Critical Study," More New Testament Studies (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968), 1-4; Frankemolle, 59-61; Flusser, 1-9; and Nolland, Luke, 279. 110 Since these verses (6:20-26) have used traditional Jewish literary forms to infer again the external frame of reference of Jewish soteriology, the reader expects the reappearance of the similar internal frames of reference. That is, the reader expects the subsequent words or deeds or both of reliable characters to render a strictly literal interpretation of this economic nomenclature implausible. Expectations have been formed, but only further reading can reveal if these expectations will be fulfilled.

In keeping with the reader's expectations, economic issues quickly become thematic again as Jesus commands his disciples:

... and from the one who takes your coat (1I1cinov) also do not withhold your shirt (XlT(.)v). Give to everyone who asks you, and do not demand back from the one who takes what is yours (6:29b-30). Although these sayings make direct reference to economic issues, the implications of these verses are unclear because of the absence of a clear frame of reference within which to read these verses. On the one hand, these verses may be read as part of a strategy for dealing with abusive behavior either from opponents of the Christian faith90 or from common criminals.91 John Nolland, for example, interprets these verses as having little to do with a financial ethic for those free from the threat of violence. He summarizes that thrust of the sayings in terms ofa believer's conduct in the face of violent persecution.

When cynically taken advantage of by the enemies of the faith, the Christian disciple is to treat the requests made of him as though they were springing from genuine need, and the goods taken from him as though they had all along been the property of the one who despoils him.92

90 E.g., Nolland, Luke, 297; SchUnnann, 347-49; and Ellis, 114-15.

91 The one who "takes" (utPEW) your coat is often regarded as a robber. See Marshall, Gospel a/Luke, 261; Bock, Luke, 593; and Evans, Saint Luke, 335.

92 Nolland, Luke, 297. 111 The context, which deals with being hated (v. 27), cursed (v. 28a), abused (v. 28b), and struck (v. 29), lends support to Nolland's reading. Thus, the reader may responsibly infer that these instructions (6:27-30) refer to the manner in which believers are to respond to the threat of violence and that these verses, therefore, offer no direct instructions regarding financial ethics apart from the context of violence.

On the other hand, however, these verses may be read as part of a widely applicable financial ethic. The language is ambiguous enough to allow for the possibility that one who takes (atpEw, vv. 29, 30) is neither a thief, nor an opponent of the Christian faith, but rather is a person in genuine need who is in no way associated with those who hate, and hit, and abuse.93 Read in this way, verses 29-30 become a call for "absolute altruism,,94 and unrestricted self-denial,95 perhaps to the point of being hyperbolic.96 Even though most readers continue to find an underlying element of coercion or force (if not outright violence) in the act of "taking" (vv. 29, 30a), many readers suggest that the subsequent command to give to anyone who asks (v. 30b) is a generalized ethical directive for believers in all situations--even when coercion and the threat of violence are absent.97 When read as a call to such unlimited generosity, these instructions seem to echo the themes present in John's directives to his converts (3:10-14).

Regardless of which external frame of reference (the threat of violence or the presence of genuine need) the reader finds more plausible, these instructions,

93 See Fitzmyer, Gospel According to Luke, 639.

94 Schmid, 197.

95 Fitzmyer, Gospel According to Luke, 639.

% Bock, Luke, 594. Marshall, Gospel of Luke, 261, reflects a similar view, insisting: "It goes without saying that the examples and even the principles given by Jesus are not to be taken over-literally." Also see Talbert, Reading Luke, 73.

97 E.g., Evans, Saint Luke, 335 and Bock, Luke, 594. Johnson, Gospel ofLuke, 109, finds a strong rejection of "ancient reciprocity (and benefaction)" in these instructions. 112 although spoken by a reliable character, do not finnly reestablish the soteriological character of the economic language used in the beatitudes and woes. These directives do, however, serve another important purpose for the reader. They clearly demonstrate the implausibility of assuming that the third gospel presumes all believers to be literal beggars. A directive to give to all who ask would make little sense if addressed to those with nothing to give!98 Still, these verses have not entirely fulfilled the reader's expectation that the soteriological character of the economic nomenclature of the beatitudes and woes would quickly be reaffinned by the third gospel. Although the reader's unfulfilled expectations create openness within the reader's soteriological reading of the third gospel's economic nomenclature, the ambiguity of the external frame of reference appropriate for these instructions (vv. 28-30) has prevented the abandonment of that reading.

The reader's unfulfilled expectations, which open the reader to the possibility of creating new gestalten, are again quickly brought to consciousness when financial themes are briefly revisited with Jesus' directive to lend to persons without expecting anything in return (vv. 33_34).99 Regardless of the exact nature of "return" envisaged by the third gospel,lOO Jesus' command is clearly "to lend without future strings."IOI Although lending money was common in the Greco­ Roman world,102 all loans occurred within a system of strict reciprocity among

98 In secular Greek, TTTOX0S" was used of literal beggars, although metaphorical uses of the term are found from the first century BCE forward. See H. Esser, 2: 821.

99 The expression oavLCETE ~T]8Ev a.7TEA"LCOVTES" "demands the meaning lend, expecting nothing in return." BAGD, "a.7TEA7TLCW," emphasis Bauer's. Cf. Plummer, 188.

100 The return could be construed as (I) a return of the principle, (2) a return of the principle plus interest, or (3) a return of a similar loan in the future. Bock, Luke, 60 I, Marshall, Gospel ofLuke, 263, and Nolland, Luke, 299, suggest that the third option is most appropriate.

101 Bock, Luke, 602.

102 Lending money to one's social equals-but only one's equals-was so common in the Greco-Roman world that money on loan was one of the three primary categories used to inventory 113 social equals. lo3 Speaking, as the third gospel does, of "money loaned to those who are not dependable"104 not only was unwise in the eyes of the Greco­ Roman world; it was an "attack on reciprocity,"los the fundamental social institution governing the loaning of money in the Greco-Roman world. Frederick Danker explains the startling and subversive character of Jesus' instructions when read against the external frame of reference of reciprocity in the Greco-Roman World.

All this is a blow at the reciprocity system, under which favors received are a kind ofLO.U. held for payment. ... Jesus disclaims the 'scratch-my­ back-and-I'll-scratch-yours' or 'the now-we-owe-them' arrangement. Clearly Jesus' pronouncements are radical, running counter to all standard and accepted rules for so-called civilized existence. I06 For those who are willing to break with the accepted principles of reciprocity, the third gospel promises that

your reward will be great, and you will be the children of the Most High (6:35b). The exact nature of the generous lender's reward is neither clearl07 nor important, because these verses are not attempting to supplant the Greco-Roman world's one's wealth (along with the amount of land owned and the amount of money in the strong box at one's home). See Finley, Ancient Economy, 116-18.

'03 On reciprocity in the Greco-Roman world and in early Christianity, see Frederick W. Danker, Benefactor (St. Louis: Clayton Publishing, 1982); S. C. Mott, The Power of Giving and Receiving: Reciprocity in Hellenistic Benevolence (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975); John H. Elliot, "Patronage and Clientism in Early Christian Society," Forum 3 (1987): 39-48; and Reggie M. Kidd, Wealth and Beneficence ill the Pastoral Epistles, SBLDS 122 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990).

'04 Schweizer, 124.

105 Talbert, Reading Luke, 75.

'00 Jesus and the New Age: A Commentary on St. Luke's Gospel (philadelphia: Fortress, 1988),87, emphasis added.

'07 Several readers have suggested that these two phrases are epexegetical and that a parent-child relationship with God is the content of the reward (e.g., Schmid, 197; Johnson, Gospel ofLuke, 112, and Schilrmann, 355). Others have suggested that the lender's reward is "the concrete form of God's approval" primarily in the present age (e.g., NoJJand, Luke, 300 and Marshall, Gospel ofLuke, 264) or in a future eschatological age (e.g., Schweizer, 124). 114 self-serving ethic of reciprocity with another equally self-serving ethic. As Christopher Evans notes, "reward is promised to those [and only those] who act without any thought of it as a motive. ,,108

The same theme of human generosity being matched by divine generosity quickly reappears as the reader is told, "Give and it will be given to you" (v. 38). By its use of the theological passive,109 the third gospel reveals that human giving is matched by divine giving'lO on a generous scale.'" Although these ethical exhortations about lending and giving are consistent with the theme of generosity within the reader's emerging gestalt, the reader's consistency-building is still impeded by the non-fulfillment of his expectation that the soteriological character of the economic nomenclature in the beatitudes and woes would quickly be reaffirmed.

108 Saint Luke, 336. Similarly, Nolland, Luke, 300, insists that the third gospel "is careful to avoid any suggestion of an alternative self-serving ethic based upon a reckoning into the equation of the divine recompense. Reward is not payment."

109 The structure of the four sayings in YV. 37-38 prescribes a human action in the active voice Gudge, condemn, forgive, and give) and then describes a divine response in the passive voice Gudged, condemned, forgiven, and given). See Robert C. Tannehill, The Sword of His Mouth (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1975), 107-08 and Schmid, 200.

110 Again, the exact nature of God's gift is not clarified. Schmithals, Lukas, 86, argues that the believer's giving and God's giving must be read against the external frame of reference of persecution. He then insists that believers who give gifts to the persecuted are themselves given gifts by other Christians when they undergo persecution. In light of the internal frame of reference which emphasizes judgment and forgiveness, it is probably better, however, to follow Bock, Luke, 608 and Tannehill, Sword, 111-12, and interpret this giving and receiving in less material tenus. Also see Hans Peter Riiger's '''Mit welchem Mass ihr messt, wird euch gemessen werden,'" ZNW60 (1969): 174-82, which argues that the saying about measurements is rooted in Palestinian traditions about endtime judgment.

III The five adjectives with the same ending (IlETPOV, KaAOV, lTElTlEO"IlEVOV, O"EO"aAEUIlEVOV, iJ1TEp€K)(UVvOIlEVOV, v. 38) are widely recognized to draw upon the image of packing gain in order to convey the idea of abundance or superabundance. E.g., Tannehill, Sword, 11-12; Fitzmyer, Gospel According to Luke, 641; Schmid, 199; Bock, Luke, 607-08; Johnson, Gospel of Luke, 113; Kremer, 76; Nolland, Luke, 301; Plummer, 189; and Marshall, Gospel ofLuke, 267. 115 The reader's expectations are heightened as he moves into the subsequent chapters. The reader's unfulfilled expectations leave gaps which only further reading can fill. Most importantly, the reader must determine whether the economic nomenclature in the beatitudes of the sermon on the plain should be regarded as primarily soteriological, like that in the earlier chapters, or if the economic nomenclature in the beatitudes should be taken literally and if, therefore, a very profound restructuring of the reader's emerging gestalten is in order.

C) Characteristic Works and Teachings (Luke 7:1-8:55)

Having finished reading the sermon on the plain without obtaining any clear reaffirmation of the soteriological character of the economic nomenclature in the beatitudes and woes, the reader senses heightened expectations as the third gospel returns to narrative material after the sermon. Although few of the stories and sayings in chapters seven and eight directly address issues of wealth and poverty-and none of them offers explicit ethical (financial) exhortations comparable to those found in the preaching of John (3:1O-14)-the accounts in these chapters do, when taken together, address the reader's expectation that the third gospel will reestablish the soteriological character of its economic nomenclature via the words and actions of reliable characters.

In the first of these accounts, Jesus is met by a group of Jewish elders who have been sent to him by a centurion in order to request the healing of his slave (7: 1-10). The centurion, who, the Jewish elders brag, has built their synagogue (v. 4), is portrayed as uncharacteristically wealthy for a soldier of his station and rank. 1l2 Nonetheless, shortly after the Jewish delegation insists that his

112 The centurion was probably not a Roman soldier, but rather a soldier under the command of Herod Antipas (see Fitzmyer, Gospel According to Luke, 651; Evans, Saint Luke, 343; and Nolland, Luke, 316). The unlikelihood of a centurion being able to underwrite the entire cost of building a synagogue (see Nolland, Luke, 316 and Evans, Saint Luke, 344) has prompted 116 generosity toward their nation and synagogue demonstrates his worthiness to receive Jesus' favor (vv. 4-5), the centurion sent a second delegation of "friends" to Jesus. This second delegation insisted that the centurion was unworthy to have Jesus come under his roof (v. 6). The centurion wished only for Jesus to say the word and the slave would be healed (v. 7). Upon hearing the centurion's protest of unworthiness, Jesus praised the man's faith and the slave was healed (vv. 9-10). Thus, this man with sufficient wealth to enable him to own a home (v. 6) and slaves (vv. 2, 8) and to subsidize the building of a synagogue (v. 5) is praised by the reliable character Jesus for having faith superior to that found in Israel (v. 9). Evidently, his considerable financial resources, which were apparently superior to those of the Jewish elders for whom this patron built a synagogue,1l3 were no impediment to faith.

Even though this account of a centurion's faith does demonstrate that Jesus' message "was reaching socially significant people of all races and was not limited to the [literal] poor,"1l4 the centurion's economic status, which may only be inferred from the details of the story, is not central to the parenetic function of the story. The centurion's attitude, however, is central to that function. While the Jewish elders insist that he is worthy (v. 4), the centurion himself (speaking through his "friends") emphasizes his unworthiness (v. 6).1lS As 1. Howard Marshall explains, the centurion

the suggestion that the centurion was not the sole, but rather the primary, contributor responsible for building the synagogue (Marshall, Gospel ofLuke, 252-544).

113 On the centurion's role as patron and the elders' and friends' roles as clients in this account, see Halvor Moxnes, "Patron-Client Relations and the New Community in Luke-Acts," The Social World ofLuke-Acts, ed. Jerome H. Neyrey (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1991), 252-54.

114 Bock, Luke, 639.

liS Note that the elders offer their opinion of the centurion, speaking in the third person ("he is worthy" v. 4), while the centurion's "friends" offer the centurion's opinion of himself, speaking in the fIrst person ("I am not worthy" v. 6). See Bock, Lllke, 276-77 117 displayed not only faith but also humility over against Jesus, considering himself unworthy to approach him [Jesus] personally .... while the Jews point to the good works of the centurion, Jesus commends the faith which lies behind them as the thing that ultimately matters. 116 This story, therefore, begins to fulfill the reader's expectation that a literal interpretation of the economic nomenclature in the beatitudes and woes will be shown, by the words and deeds of reliable characters, to be implausible. The defining characteristic of "the rich," as they are denounced in the woes, cannot be simply the possession of wealth--or else this wealthy centurion would not have been praised. Thus, the reader may speculate that the third gospel's criticisms of the rich in the beatitudes and woes are not broadly based criticisms of the possession of wealth, but rather criticisms focused upon some other undesirable characteristic(s) associated with wealthy persons (e.g., disbelief, arrogance or a pretense of self-worthiness). The reader, therefore, tentatively constructs consistency from the text's apparently inconsistent perspectives by interpreting the woe against the rich as a woe against the wealthy who, unlike this centurion, regard themselves as soteriologically "worthy."

The next story in chapter seven, a story in which Jesus favors a presumably poor widow by bringing her only son back to life (7:11-17),117 does not address the undesirable characteristics which the third gospel associates with wealthy persons. Yet the juxtaposition of these characters, a presumably poor widow and a presumably wealthy centurion, serves to illustrate further that economic status is not the primary criterion for determining who will be favored with the divine blessings that Jesus dispenses. The juxtaposition of these stories also serves another textual strategy. These stories, about the faith of a non­ Israelite soldier and about God's favor toward a widow, echo the events within

116 Gospel a/Luke, 276-77.

117 The widow's economic situation would presumably have been grim if she lost the earning power of her only son, who would have been her only [mandaI hope. See Schiirmann, 400; Fitzmyer, Gospel According to Luke, 658; Danker, Jesus and the New Age, 93; and Schweizer, 133. liS Elijah's ministry which Jesus highlighted in his inaugural sermon (4:25-27).118 Thus, these stories foreshadow the important eschatological discussion which is about to transpire between Jesus and the disciples of John (7: 18-23).

Having heard about Jesus' deeds, John the baptist sent two l19 of his disciples to ask Jesus if he was the "coming one" (7:18-19; cf. 3:16-17). Jesus answered John's question in an indirect fashion, instructing John's disciples:

Go and tell John what you have seen and heard: the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deafhear, the dead are raised, the poor have good news brought to them (v. 22, NRSV). Jesus' reply, loosely structured citations from and allusions to several Isaian texts,120 is not a direct answer to John's question. Rather it merely points toward the "eschatological blessings" accompanying Jesus' ministry.l2l Although Jesus' answer makes no explicit christologicru claims, it allows the reader to know that the time of salvation heralded by Isaiah has arrived in the ministry of Jesus. 122 One of the signs of this eschatological fulfillment is the preaching of good news to the poor, which, in keeping with its previous prophetic use (4:18),

118 "Taken as a set, the stories represent the narrative fulfillment of the programmatic prophecy of Luke 4:25-27." Johnson, Gospel of Luke, 120. Also see Craig A. Evans, "Luke's Use of the Elijah/Elisha Narratives and the Ethic of Election," JBL 106 (1987): 78-80 and Talbert, Reading Luke, 78.

119 John's sending of two disciples may reflect his concern to establish a truth by the word of two witnesses in keeping with the requirements of the deuteronomistic law. See Sabugal, 20-21.

120 Isa 61:1; 29:18-19; 35:5-6; and 26:19. See Nolland, Luke, 330.

121 Fitzmyer, Gospel According to Luke, 665.

122 No\land, 330, is correct that Jesus' answer focuses more upon eschatology than upon christology. Jesus' answer is less of a self-disclosure than an announcement of an eschatological event. Cf. Sabugal, 33. 119 need not be taken literally. The poor are not mentioned here in service of a social agenda, but rather in the service of a soteriological agenda. The poor, whether understood spiritually or literally-and Jesus has not made a point of preaching to the literally poor in the narrative thus far (cf. 4:43),123 are part of a larger group of characters adopted from the Septuagint's soteriological categories and "function rhetorically in Luke's narrative to make the christological point that Jesus is God's unique eschatological agent ofsalvation.,,124

Having suggested that the age of eschatological fulfillment has arrived in his ministry, Jesus then again emphasizes this fulfillment theme by contrasting the ascetic restraint of John's disciples with the celebratory behavior of himself and his disciples (7:33-34Y25 whose indulgence with food and drink prompted onlookers to level charges of drunkenness and gluttony against them (v. 34).126 In addition to underscoring the fulfillment theme, the conduct of Jesus and his disciples also again reiterates the unwillingness of the third gospel to idealize poverty and privation (particularly hunger, cf 6:21). Jesus may bless the hungry, but he and his disciples, here as elsewhere in the third gospel (5:33), neither idealize nor share that state of privation in any literal sense.

Immediately after defending himself against the charges of drunkenness and gluttony (v. 34), Jesus went to the house of a Pharisee in order to eat (v. 36).

123 The phrase, "the poor have good news preached to them," is given the climatic (fmal) position in this string of six signs because it is used to link these events with the prophecy in 4: 18- 19. The "poor" in 7:22, as in 4:18, may be understood as the "spiritually indigent." See Sabugal, 34 and 37.

124 See S. John Roth, The Blind, The Lame, and the Poor: Character Types in Luke-Acts, JSNTSup 144 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997),26.

125 On the behavior of Jesus and his disciples as celebratory and eschatological, see Howard Clark Kee, "Jesus: A Glutton and a Drunkard," NTS 42 (1996): 374-93; Nolland, Luke, 345-46; and Fitzmyer, Gospel According to Luke, 681.

126 Evans, Saint Luke, 358, is correct to note that "if this refers to ordinary life and does not mean 'specifically given to eating and drinking,' it is difficult to see how it gave rise to the perverse judgment." 120 While there, Jesus' encounter with an unnamed sinful, but forgiven, woman further confirms the reader's sense that the soteriological disposition and attitudes of persons are a deeper parenetic concern for the third gospel than is the financial status of persons. Although little is disclosed about the financial status of either the woman or Jesus' Pharisaical host, Simon, their actions are explicitly contrasted and their underlying attitudes are implicitly contrasted.

Jesus offers a brief parable of two debtors, one who is forgiven a debt of 500 denarii and another who is forgiven a debt of 50 denarii,127 and asks Simon which debtor would love the forgiving creditor more (vv. 41-42). Simon correctly surmises that the person who was forgiven the larger debt would have greater love (vv. 43-44). In light of the story of the debtors, a story which Jesus used strictly for illustrative purposes and which has no financial implications, Jesus then contrasts Simon's behavior with that of the woman.128 Simon offered Jesus no water with which to wash his feet; the woman washed Jesus' feet with her tears and dried them with her hair (v. 44). Simon gave Jesus no kiss; the woman had continually kissed Jesus' feet (v. 45). Simon has not anointed Jesus with oil; the woman had anointed him with ointment (v. 46).129 This account, with its brief parable and its sharp contrast between these two characters, is not merely

127 "The debt levels are quite parochial in terms of the lifestyle of the upper echelons of Roman society (Cicero's annual expenses were 150,000 denarii per year; office holders under Augustus received from 2,500 to 10,000 denarii per year, with those of procuratorial rank drawing 15,000 to 75,000 denarii per year), but nevertheless very pressing to ordinary folk for whom the agricultural laborer's daily wage was around one denarius." Nol\and, Luke, 355.

128 The Lukan version of this story varies significantly from the Matthean (26:6-13) and Markan (14:3-9) parallels. The Markan (14:5) and Matthean (26:9) versions contain a discussion of the possibility that the ointment could have been sold to provide funds for the poor. They have no parallels to the Lukan contrast between the hospitality of Simon and the woman (7:40-46).

129 The woman's ointment (j.l1Jpov) was more expensive than the oil (EAaLOv), which Simon failed to provide. According to Pliny the Elder, ointment, unlike olive oil, was often stored in alabaster flasks instead of the cheaper clay jars. See Fitzmyer, Gospel According to Luke, 689. Also see Plummer, 213; Bock, Luke, 702; Johnson, Gospel a/Luke, 127; and Ellis, 122. 121 an exhortation to hospitality.l3O Rather, the account illustrates how one's actions are indicative of one's spiritual state. As Luke Johnson explains, "By the logic of the parable, the woman's actions showed her state of forgiveness. Simon's refusal, likewise, indicates a lack offorgiveness."l3l

Immediately after demonstrating how one woman's actions reflected her spiritual condition, the third gospel makes a passing reference to the actions of another group of women, including Mary Magdalene, Joanna and Susanna, who support the ministry of Jesus and his disciples. Presumably their actions, including generous use of their financial resources, also reflect their spiritual condition. The third gospel records that

The twelve were with him [Jesus], as well as some women who had been cured of evil spirits and infirmities: Mary, called Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out, and Joanna, the wife of Herod's steward Chuza, and Susanna, and many others, who provided for them out of their resources (8:1b-3, NRSV). This brief travel note is replete with unanswered (and largely unanswerable) questions. J32 Where did the women get the financial resources to support the ministry of JesusI33 and his disciples? Did the resources come from a

130 Simon's conduct was not an egregious breach of social etiquette; the woman simply went beyond all established nonns of hospitality. See Schilrmann, 435; Marshall, Gospel a/Luke, 312; Fitzmyer, Gospel According to Luke, 690-91; Nolland, Luke, 357; and Evans, Saint Luke, 364-65.

131 Johnson, Gospel a/Luke, 127.

132 This peri cope has been a center of discussion for those concerned with the portrayal of women in the third gospel, a discussion which Robert Karris has described as the "new stonn­ center" of Lukan scholarship. See "Women and Discipleship in Luke," CEQ 56 (1994): 1-20. The most important recent contributions to the discussion are Turid Karlsen Seim's The Double Message: Patterns a/Gender in Luke-Acts (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1994) and James Malcolm Arlandson, Women, Class, and Society in Early Christianity: Models from Luke-Acts (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1997).

133 Karris, "Women and Discipleship," 9, argues that verse 3 should be translated "women who used their resources in going on a mission for him." Although some manuscripts do substitute airrois- in the place of aim.\l, this alternation is easily explained as a "christo logical heightening" (Marshall, Gospel 0/ Luke, 317, also see Fitzmyer, Luke According to Luke, 698). More importantly, OlT}KOVOUV (provided for, served) is not used when Jesus does send people on missionary journeys in the third gospel (9: 1-6; 10: 1-12) and its previous appearance in the third 122 few wealthy individuals!34 or were they collected from the entire group of women?!35 Is the reader supposed to understand that the women who supplied the group's financial needs traveled "with him" like the twelve did?!36 If so, one may well ask with Luise Schottroff, "Are we to imagine that they carry large money­ bags behind the disciples?"!37 Regardless how one answers these questions, this brief travel note again illustrates that some persons who had responded positively to Jesus' message continued to possess significant financial resources and that gospel (4:29) has no missionary overtones. On the use of OLTJKOVOUV in this context, see Barbara E. Reid, Choosing the Better Part? Women in the Gospel of Luke (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1996), 126-28; David C. Sim, "The Women Followers of Jesus," HeyJ30 (1989): 51-52, 56-58; and K. Hess, "OLaKOV€W," NIDNNT(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978),3: 544-49.

134 Susanna is mentioned only here in the New Testament and the reference may stem from her role as a particularly significant source of fmandal resources for the early Christian community at some point. Mary and Joanna are Lukan witnesses to the resurrected Christ (24: I 0) and thus may be singled out here in order to add creditability to their role as witnesses to the resurrection-the idea being that they knew Jesus well before his death and thus would recognize his resurrected body. Such interpretation is common. E.g., Schilrmann, 446; Nolland, Luke, 366; Johnson, Gospel of Luke, 134; Marshall, Gospel ofLuke, 315; Schmid, 225; Tannehill, Narrative Unity, 1: 139; Ellis, 124; and Kremer, 88-89.

I3S Most interpreters assume that a few relatively wealthy individual women supplied the fmancial needs for the entire group according to the narrative. E.g., Marshall, Gospel of Luke, 317; Nolland, Luke, 316-17; Fitzmyer, Gospel According to Luke, 698; Plummer, 215-16; and Farrar, St. Luke, 161-62. However, the narrative could be construed to mean that a large group of women pooled their collective resources in order to provide financial resources for Jesus and his disciples. See Sinl, 51-62.

136 Women commonly provided financial support for rabbis and traveling teachers, but there are few examples of women actually joining rabbis or teachers in their travels. See Ben Witherington, "On the Road with Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Susanna, and Other Disciples," ZNW 70 (1979): 243-48 and Schilnnann, 447. Many interpreters assume that these women, who are portrayed providing for the group's financial needs, traveled with Jesus, suggesting their equality with men. E.g., Schmid, 226; Schmithals, 100-01; Bock, Luke, 713; and Sabine Demel, "Jesu Umgang mit Frauen nach dem Lukasevangelium," BN 557 (1991): 67-69. Petzke, 102, is wise to caution that these verses are a "thin basis" for asserting the equality of male and female disciples in either the ministry of the historical Jesus or the Lukan narrative.

137 "Women as Followers of Jesus in New Testament Times," The Bible and Liberation, ed. Nonnan K. Gottwald and Richard A. Horsley (Maryknoll: Orbis, 1993), 455. Schotrroff plausibly suggests that the historically unlikely image of women traveling with Jesus and supporting his ministry financially resulted from the author of the third gospel merging traditional accounts of women traveling with Jesus on the one hand with the practice within Lukan times of wealthy women supporting the churches financially on the other hand. Similarly, Schweizer, 42. 123 such possession was not inconsistent with their commitment to Jesus. Rather than reflecting an ethos of dispossession, these verses reflect an ethos of generosity.

The remainder of chapter eight gives the reader only limited data for developing an understanding of issues of wealth and poverty in the third gospel. The most direct reference138 to issues of wealth and poverty139 is found in the third gospel's allegorical interpretation of the parable of the four soils (8:11-15). According to the interpretation of the parable in the third gospel, only the person who is analogous to the fourth (good) soil bears fruit to maturity. The first soil (along the path) is analogous to persons who never believe. The second (rocky) soil is analogous to persons who believe, but who "fall away" in time of temptation. The third (thorn infested) soil is analogous to persons who believe, but who do not produce mature fruit because the sower's message is "choked by the cares and riches and pleasures of life" (v. 14). The idea that riches, literal riches, can create a potential impediment to spiritual development by crowding out 140 spiritual concerns is not surprising to the reader, given the stereotypical attitudes of the rich assumed earlier in the narrative. Yet this reference to the choking influence of riches, cares and pleasures should not be interpreted as a blanket condemnation of those who possess wealth any more than it should be

138 The proverb of verse 18, "For to the one who has more will be given, and from the one who has not, even what that one thinks that one has will be taken away," should be interpreted within this context of spiritual development and spiritual demise. As Fitzmyer, Gospel According to Luke, 720, notes about verse 18, "In itself, this saying reflects practical wisdom about wealth or possessions. In the present Lukan context, however, it has nothing to do with money or material possessions. "

139 Some manuscripts add a note of economic description to the account of the woman who was healed of a blood disorder (8:43-48), explaining that she spent all of her money on doctors. Although no absolute conclusion may be reached, most interpreters, including myself, regard the comment as a scribal addition. E.g., Schiirmann, 490; Schweizer, 150; Fitzmyer, Gospel According to Luke, 746; Evans, Saint Luke, 390; and Ellis, 130. Johnson, Gospel ofLuke, 141 and Marshall, Gospel of Luke, 344, withhold judgment. Bock, Luke, 807, accepts the comment as Lukan.

140 The only other occurrence of the verb crul.l1TV( yw ("choked out," v. 14) in the third gospel is 8:42 where the crowds were tightly pressed against Jesus. 124 interpreted as a blanket condemnation of those who experience cares (Jl.EpLfl.va) or pleasures (~60vij). The problem is not wealth, or cares, or pleasure per se, but rather how people are affected by wealth or cares or pleasures. It remains possible that those Who possess wealth may fall at Jesus' feet and beg for his intervention, as does the presumably wealthy141 Jairus in the subsequent verses. Jesus fulfills this wealthy man's plea by healing his daughter (8:41-42,49-56).

Up to this point in the narrative, the reader has been able to form many initial gestalten, but the reader has also been faced with many blanks. On the one hand, the reader's gestalten formation has led to the tentative conclusions that generosity is an ethical norm incumbent upon those who participate in the eschatological event ushered in by Jesus' ministry, that one's financial status or level of privation or both are not the primary factors which determine who will receive the divine favor meted out in Jesus' ministry, that the third gospel does not idealize physical privations or poverty, and that the third gospel's criticisms of wealth cannot consistently be interpreted as criticisms of the possession of financial resources. On the other hand, the reader continues to face a number of blanks which provide the reader with several unanswered questions. For example, is it significant that the third gospel has used the terms "rich" and "poor" only for soteriological purposes and has spoken of the "rich" and "poor" only as God relates to these persons (e.g., Jesus blesses the poor and preaches to them; God has sent the rich away hungry)? Will the third gospel begin to explore how these people are to relate to one another as human beings? Will the Baptist's theme of the need for freedom from greed reappear in the narrative? On what scale is one to be generous and are there any limits to the third gospel's demand for generosity? These and other questions can only be answered by further reading.

141 Johnson, Gospel ofLuke, 141, is correct to note the synagogue leaders were typically those who could afford to be fmancial patrons of the synagogue. Also see Bock, Luke, 791. 125 Encountering Negations (Luke 9-14)

Thus far in the reading process, the reader has encountered complex, multifaceted and sometimes seemingly conflicting perspectives on issues of wealth and poverty in the third gospel. Up to this point in the third gospel, Jesus, on the one hand, has warned about the dangers of wealth and even sternly criticized the rich, but, on the other hand, he has also given several ethical directives which assume that his listeners have significant economic resources at their disposal. (The exhortations advocating generosity in giving and lending are pointed examples of this assumption.) Not only Jesus' advocacy of generosity, but also his willingness to help those in positions of presumed economic advantage (e.g., Jairus) and even his praise for individuals with significant economic resources (e.g., the centurion), have led the reader to the tentative conclusions that the third gospel is not critical toward the possession of wealth per se, but rather toward some other characteristic(s) often found among the wealthy. These tentative conclusions, however, are challenged by Jesus' instructions to his envoys in chapters nine and ten. For the first time, the reader is faced with direct instructions from a reliable character which appear to negate the connections being formulated between the various textual perspectives.

A) The Mission of the Twelve (9: 1-62)

At the beginning of the ninth chapter, Jesus confers "power and authority" on the twelve and commissions them to "preach the kingdom of God and to heal the sick" (9:1-2). Upon sending them out, Jesus provides the twelve with three types of rules to obey while away from him: "rules about the journey; ... rules about lodging; and ... rules about the non-reception of the preaching."J42

14' Fitzmyer, Gospel According to Luke, 752. 126 About the journey, Jesus instructs them: 143

Take nothing for the journey, neither a staff, nor a knapsack, nor bread, nor money, nor even have two shirts (9:3). About their lodging, Jesus instructs them:

And whatever house you enter, remain there and leave from there (9:4).

About the non-reception of their message, Jesus instructs them:

And whoever does not receive you, shake the dust from your feet for a testimony against them when you leave that city (9:5). For readers interested in issues of wealth and poverty in the third gospel, the rules about conduct on the journey and in houses are more important than are the rules for witnessing against the non-reception of their message. 144

In his instructions for the journey, Jesus' prohibitions are surprisingly stern. He prohibits all of the items normally deemed necessary for travel, forbidding the twelve to carry food, money, a travel sack, or even a staff. 145 Although wandering philosophers and teachers in the Greco-Roman world,

143 The mission instructions probably have no claim to authenticity. See F. W. Beare, "The Mission of the Disciples and the Mission Charge," JBL 89 (1970): 1-13. Cf. Theissen, "Itinerant Radicalism," 84-93.

144 The third gospel is ambiguous in this account about whether the dust-shaking ritual is intended as a witness against the non-receptivity of the entire city or only of certain individuals within the city. The difference is not significant for the reading being pursued in this dissertation. In the subsequent sending, however, no ambiguity exists. The act is a witness against the entire city (10: 10-12).

145 While the staff (pci[l3os-) is prohibited in the third gospel (9:3) and in the gospel of Matthew (10:10), the gospel of Mark (10:8) allows the disciples to carry a staff. On early Christian attempts to harmonize the synoptics on this point, see Tijitze Baarda, '''A Staff Only, Not a Stick:' Disharmony of the Gospels and the Harmony of Tatian (Matthew 10,9f.; Mark 6,8f.; Luke 9,3 and 10,4)," The New Testament in Early Christianity, ed. Jean-Marie Sevrin (Leuven: University Press, 1989), 311-33. On recent attempts to harmonize these accounts, see Bock, Luke, 815-16. Although the synoptics do differ about the acceptability of a staff for these envoys, Plummer, 239, is correct to note that in all three synoptic gospels "the meaning is essentially the same: 'Make no special preparations; go as you are.'" 127 particularly Cynics and Essenes,146 commonly traveled without taking along any food or money, the prohibitions against carrying a staff or travel sack are unparalleled. Some readers have suggested that the severity of these prohibitions emphasizes the disciples' voluntary poverty,147 but the third gospel's positive portrayal of persons with far greater possessions renders this suggestion implausible. 148 Other readers have suggested that these stem prohibitions emphasize either the disciples' radical dependence upon God for the success of

l49 their rnission or the eschatological urgency of the task before them. ISO Yet A. E. Harvey provides the explanation for the severity of these prohibitions that is most consistent with the external frame of reference of the Greco-Roman world with its wandering teachers and the internal frame of reference of the third gospel with its frequent presumption of its characters' ownership of financial resources. Harvey suggested that

staff, cloak and begging pouch (TIijpa) were the standard uniform of the Cynic philosopher; there may have been an impulse to make it absolutely clear, by denying the disciples even these things, that this was not the way of life they were to imitate. lSI Whatever one understands to be the narrative's underlying motivation for prohibiting the twelve from taking anything along with them on their journey,152

146 The Essenes carried only a staff to protect themselves against highway robbers. The Cynics carried only a staff and a begging pouch. See Fitzmyer, Gospel According to Luke, 753- 54.

147 E.g., Tannehill, Narrative Unity, I: 215-16 and Ferdinand Hahn, Mission in the New Testament, Studies in Biblical Theology 47 (Naperville: Allenson, 1965),46.

148 If Levi could afford to host a great banquet (5:29) and the centurion could afford to own slaves (7: 1-10), then surely the disciples could afford to own staffs.

149 SchUrmann, 502.

150 Schmithals, 108 and Evans, Saint Luke, 396.

151 "'The Workman is Worthy of His Hire:' Fortunes of a Proverb in the Early Church," NovT24 (1982): 218. Also see Danker, Jesus and the New Age, II I and Bock, Luke, 819.

152 For a convenient summary and critical analysis of the most commonly suggested motivations for these prohibitions, see Nol!and, Luke, 427. 128 the logical result of these rigid prohibitions in the narrative was that the envoys became dependent upon receptive households for hospitality and support. The envoys were to expect sustenance from the households which were receptive to their ministry.IS3 Yet even while being dependent upon the hospitality of the recipients of their ministry, the twelve were subject to restrictions that again distinguished them from the traveling teachers of the Greco-Roman world. The traveling teachers and philosophers common to the Greco-Roman world were widely disreputed as "charlatans," who sought material advancement from the dispersal of their teaching,154 but Jesus' rules for accepting hospitality expressly prohibited "seeking out better quarters."ISS The restrictions placed upon these envoys by the third gospel precluded even the appearance of such profiteering by forbidding them even ''to upgrade on hospitality once accepted."IS6

The reader has now encountered direct exhortations which challenge his emerging gestalt. For the first time, Jesus, a reliable character, gives a direct command which seems to advocate an ideal of personal privation. Up to this point in the narrative, the reader has encountered no advocacy of self­ impoverishment that is directly comparable to these instructions. (In fact, the very presence of the command not to take food and money on their journey seems to imply that the twelve had not previously impoverished themselves, that is, they possessed food and money which was not to be taken along on their journey.IS7)

153 Johnson, Gospel ofLuke, 148, suggests that the stem prohibitions serve to emphasize the motif of acceptance and rejection, explaining: "The point is not asceticism but a function .of prophetic acceptance and rejection. Travelling without any provisions makes the missionaries dependent on the hospitality of their listeners."

154 See Johnson, Gospel ofLuke, 145 and Marshall, Gospel ofLuke, 350-51.

ISS Fitzrnyer, Gospel According 10 Luke, 754.

IS6Nolland, Luke, 427.

157 Schiinnann, 499, argues that the third gospel historicizes these instructions and removes their prescriptive force by limiting them to the time of the journey. 129 At previous points, the narrative has been open to readings which could idealize poverty to varying degrees. For example, the narrator and reliable characters, including Jesus, have pronounced blessings on the poor (perhaps the literal poor); some individual disciples have left their livelihoods behind to follow Jesus; and the rich (perhaps the literal rich) were the recipients of various warnings and rebukes. Yet, upon closer examination, such sayings and stories have appeared within internal frames of reference which rendered any advocacy of self-impoverishment implausible, thus closing off readings which would idealize poverty. Yet the prohibitions directed to the twelve at this point reopen the possibility of reading the third gospel in such a manner which idealizes poverty and advocates a life of personal privation and self­ impoverishment.

Thus the reader is faced with a serious gap at this point in the narrative. How does Jesus' prohibition against his envoys taking any material resources along on their journey relate to the narrative's more characteristic assumption that those who respond positively to Jesus' message continue to manage their own financial resources? The reader anticipates the possibility that a preliminary answer to this question may be found in the distinction which exists between the twelve, who are sent out without any material resources, and the receptive households, who share their resources with those twelve. lss Yet, only further reading can determine how these stem prohibitions are related to the other perspectives in the third gospel.

The mission of the twelve is quickly concluded (it lasts only long enough for the narrator to give a report about Herod [9:7-9]) and they return to Jesus (9:10). The reader's curiosity is aroused by the subsequent scene. Jesus and the

158 Schtirmann, 502, suggests that the relationship between the twelve and the receptive households reflects the relationship that existed between Jesus (and the twelve) and the women who supported his ministry (8: 1-3). 130 disciples are followed by the crowds into "a deserted place" (v. 12)159 where Jesus preaches and heals. After some time, the twelve urge Jesus to send the crowds away so that they may travel elsewhere to secure provisions (v. 12). Rather than acquiescing to their desire, Jesus commands them: "You give them something to eat" (v. 13a). Their response is intriguing: "We have no more than five loaves and two fish-unless we are to go and buy food for all these people" (v. 13 b, NRSV).160 Immediately upon returning from their journey, the twelve, therefore, apparently are no longer subject to the journey's stem prohibitions against possessing food and money since they entertain the possibility of buying food for the crowds. 161 The fact that the twelve apparently are no longer prohibited from possessing food is further reinforced when the twelve, in obedience to Jesus' instructions, gather up twelve baskets of leftovers (v. 17).162 Immediately upon returning from their journey, therefore, they possess food, though in small amounts, and possibly money. Although the reader must be cautious about reading too much into the incidental details of this story, 163 the response of the twelve does clearly establish that the stem instructions given to them before their journey were, in fact, "for the journey" only (9:3).

159 The narrator records that Jesus went into a "city" (rroAlS-) called Bethsaida (v. 10) but the twelve describe the place as "deserted" (ev ep~~,¥ TOrr'll, v. 12). This seeming inconsistency has led to SOme textual confusion as scribes have sought to harmonize the descriptions. See Fitzmyer, Gospel According to Luke, 765-66.

160 Although this story appears in all four canonical gospels, the prospect of buying food for the crowd is treated differently in each account. The gospel of Matthew (14:13-21) makes no reference to buying food. In the gospel of Mark, the disciples suggest buying 200 denarii worth of bread to give the crowd (6:37), but, as the gospel of John states (6:7), 200 denarii worth of bread would not have been sufficient to meet the demands of the crowd. Only the third gospel presents the purchasing of food for the crowds as a realistic possibility.

161 On EL ~~Tl ("unless") as expressing a possibility, see BDF, section 376, and BAGD, "El." Also see Marshall, Gospel ofLuke, 360-61 and Bock, Luke, 831, n. 10.

162 The reference to the twelve baskets of leftovers is, of course, primarily symbolic of the fact that the twelve should now possess the resources with which to provide other persons with spiritual food. See Fitzmyer, Gospel According to Luke, 769 and Evans, Saint Luke, 402.

'63 Plummer, 244, plausibly suggests that the disciples' mention of buying food primarily serves to emphasize their "perplexity" at being told to feed the people. 131 These stem prohibitions were not to be understood as permanently binding prohibitions against the twelve possessing the basic necessities oflife.

By pressing the details of the story of the feeding of the 5,000, the reader has determined the implausibility of extending the severity of the journey prohibitions into the rest of the ministry of Jesus and the twelve. Textual strategies are again, as they previously have been, observed negating the persuasiveness of reading the third gospel as advocating self-impoverishment. The reader, of course, still must seek to determine some more positive conclusions about the function of the missionary rules, but negatively, the reader has determined that these instructions do not contain the ethical norms to be gleaned from the third gospel. The rest of the ninth chapter speaks little to issues of wealth and poverty/64 but the tenth chapter quickly brings economic themes back into prominence as Jesus again sends out envoys.

B) The Mission of the "Others" and its aftermath (Luke 10:1-42)

The tenth chapter opens with a "doublet,,165 of the missionary journey of the twelve in which 72 (or 70)166 envoys are sent out by Jesus (10:1-12). This account is very similar to the earlier sending of the twelve. Jesus

164 The rhetorical question in 9:25 ("For what does it profit a person if one gains the whole world, but is destroyed or losses life?") does employ the terms of profit and gain (ui¢EAEW, KEp8a.[VW), which were common in fmancial discussions (Fitzmyer, Gospel According /0 Luke, 788 and Nolland, Luke, 484), but in the context (speaking of taking up one's cross and of finding and losing life, vv. 23-24) the financial implications of the terms are marginal. The terminology serves to warn about the dangers of giving anything priority over spiritual concerns.

165 "Luke's reason for this 'doublet' seems to be that the 'mission' will not be restricted to the Twelve; 'others' will share in the testimony to be borne to Jesus and to his own word or message. The significance of this 'doublet' is realized when one recalls how in Acts the role of the Twelve eventually becomes insignificant." Fitzmyer, Gospel According /0 Luke, 844.

166 The manuscript evidence is evenly divided between the readings 70 and 72. See Brnce M. Metzger, "Seventy or Seventy-Two Disciples?" NTS 5 (1958-59): 299-306 and Sidney Jellicoe, "St. Luke and the 'Seventy(-two),'" NTS 6 (1959-60): 319-21. Although the evidence prohibits making any definitive judgments, Nolland is correct to suggest that the "loss of the two is easier to explain than its addition." See Luke, 546. 132 commissions the envoys and sends them out two by twol67 with rules to guide their actions on the journey itself, their actions in the homes of receptive listeners and their actions in unreceptive cities. In addition to these features, which are similar to those in the earlier sending, this account is supplemented with imagery of the envoys being workers in a harvest and sheep among wolves and with sayings about peace, about wages, and about Sodom.

After explaining the immensity of the harvest and the paucity of workers (v. 2), Jesus sent the 72 (70) out "as lambs in the midst of wolves" (v. 3), instructing them:

Carry neither a purse, nor a knapsack, nor sandals, and greet no one along the way (v. 4). The reader understands the prohibitions against taking along provisions as "suggestive rather than exhaustive,,168 and as essentially equivalent to the earlier command to "take nothing,,,169 which was given to the twelve when they were sent on their earlier missionary journey (9:3). The reader anticipates that these prohibitions, like the earlier set of missionary prohibitions, serve a purpose other than the idealization of self-impoverishment or identification of the envoys with the impoverished. 170 In these prohibitions, however, unlike the earlier set, the reader is able to discern clearly a purpose for their severity.

167 SchUnnann, 500, notes that the 72 (70) are sent out two by two whereas the twelve were sent out as one group with a "collegial air" (kollegialles Auftreten). Although this suggestion may overwork the narrative, it is noteworthy that the twelve were apparently not among the 70 "others" (ETEp0L) sent out in 10:1.

16& Nolland, Luke, 551.

169 On the existence of similar rules throughout early Christianity, see Takaaki Haraguchi, "Das Unterhaltrecht des frilchristlichen VerkUndigers," ZNW84 (1993): 178-95.

170 Cf. SchUnnann, 2: 63 and Bock, Luke, 997. 133 One of the novel features of these instructions, the prohibition against greeting persons along the way,171 provides the reader with a plausible explanation for the purpose behind the uncharacteristic severity of these prohibitions. Reading the prohibitions, including the prohibition against greeting persons along the way, in the light of the accompanying harvest imagery alerts the reader to "a sense of urgency.,,172 The urgency of the task is so great that the envoys must not waste any time with small talk along the way.173 As Joseph Fitzmyer explains, for these envoys,

there will be no time for ordinary greetings, scruples over what sort of food one eats, or searching for better quarters. Their concern is to be, 'The kingdom of God has drawn near to you!' Their concern for God's kingdom must be that of reapers confronted with a harvest that is to be gathered in before it spoils. 174 A sense of eschatological urgency permeates all of these prohibitions, providing the explanation for the severity of these prohibitions. The severity of these prohibitions was motivated by the eschatological urgency of the mission.175

Given the severity of the prohibitions against taking provisions for the journey, the reader is not surprised that the third gospel again assumes that the envoys will receive hospitality from households which are receptive to their ministry and that the third gospel again provides instructions about the manner in

17l Benhard Lang's "GruBverbot oder Besuchsverbot?" BZ 26 (I982): 75-79, argues that the instructions prohibit stopping to visit with friends and family while traveling on missionary business, but this reading requires a bizarre contortion of the rather simple Kat fl-TjOEVa KaTC! rilv OOOV uCrTClcrTjcr9E (v. 4).

172 Nolland, Luke, 551. Also see Fitzmyer, Gospel According to Luke, 847; Schmithals, Lukas, 121; and Harvey, 219.

173 "It is not greetings, but greetings KaTcl njv 006v that are forbidden." Plummer, 273.

174 Fitzmyer, Gospel According to Luke, 844.

175 Cf. Angelo O'Hagan, "'Greet No One On The Way' (Lk 10,4b)," Studii Biblici Franciscani Annus 16 (1965-66): 69-84. O'Hagan, 83, argues that the prohibition against greetings is motivated by "a positive hostility towards the inimical world of evil." 134 which the envoys are to relate to their hosts (vv. 5_7).176 Whereas the twelve were merely told to enter and depart from the same house (9:4), the 72 (70) were instructed to eat and drink whatever their hosts or hostesses set before them and not to go from house to house (v. 7).

In addition to discerning the eschatological urgency which motivates these stem prohibitions, the reader also discovers insight into issues of wealth and poverty in the third gospel's defense of the envoys' right to accept (expect) hospitality from receptive households. Jesus teIls the envoys that they have the right to eat whatever is set before them because "the worker is worthy of that one's wages.,,177 Thus, the third gospel has clarified that the motivation for the severe prohibitions was not the desirability of a life of poverty because, as Alfred Plummer notes, the hospitality which the workers receive is "salary and not alms.,,178 Even though the eschatological urgency of their harvest prevented these workers from securing the customary provisions for their travel, they were not expected to forfeit the wages which were appropriate for their labor.

This mission, like that of the twelve, was very brief in narrative time and the 72 (70) quickly returned to report the success of their mission (10: 17). The 72 (70), having completed their mission, fade from the narrative and the text quickly returns to its prevailing assumption that Jesus' listeners and foIlowers have

176 Schiirmann, 2: 63, notes the rigorous demands of verse four could only be understandable in the context of hospitable households like those assumed in verses five through seven.

In Harvey, 218-19, notes that in Matthew's gospel, there is no logical connection between prohibition against taking anything on the journey and the proverb about the worthy worker ("Take no gold, nor ... nor ... no bag ... nor ... nor a staff; for the worker is worthy of his food" 10:9-10). In the third gospel, on the other hand, ''the connection of the proverb with context is more convincing. 'Remain in the same house, eating and drinking what they provide you with. For the workman is worthy of his hire.' This makes good sense. The proverb offers a reason why Christian missionaries should be entitled to receive temporary hospitality."

178 Plummer, 274. The right of workers to receive sustenance (Tpo,,) was commonly acknowledged in early Christian documents (e.g., Matt 10:10; I Cor 9:14; 1 Tim 5:18; and Did. 13:1), but the third gospel speaks of wages (J.llcre6s) See Fitzmyer, Gospel According to Luke, 848. 135 financial resources to manage for themselves. In fact, Jesus' subsequent dialogue with a lawyer is built upon the assumption that those who accept his message will possess fmancial resources with which they may assist those in need.

The parable'79 of the so-called "Good Samaritan" is introduced in the context of a controversy storyl80 between Jesus and a Jewish expert on the law. This expert, a lawyer, asks Jesus what one must "do,,'81 in order to "inherit" etemallife (v. 25). The Lukan Jesus answers, as he characteristically responds to all potentially entrapping questions, with a question: "In the law, what is written? How do you read it?" (v. 26).182 The lawyer then summarizes the law by quoting an amalgamation of Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18 which requires one to love God and neighbor (v. 27).183 Jesus shows apparent satisfaction with the answer and tells the lawyer to do that and he will live (v. 28). The lawyer, however, will not let the issue drop and, in a vain attempt at self­ justification, asks: "Who is my neighbor?" (v. 29).184

179 This account may be an example story. Example stories are especially common in the synoptic materials which are unique to the third gospel ("L"). See Jeffrey T. Tucker, Example Stories: Perspectives on Four Parables in the Gospel ofLuke, JSNTSup 162 (Sheffield: Academic Press, 1998); Gerhard Sellin, "Lukas als Gleichniserzithler," ZNW 65 (1974): 166-89; 66 (1975): 19-60; and Petzke, 108-09.

180 Marshall's Gospel of Luke, 439, claims that the lawyer is "friendly" to Jesus, but the use of EKTrElpci(w ("test") suggests othenvise. This verb is consistently used in the third gospel to indicate a "hostile attitude." See Fitzmyer, Gospel According to Luke, 880 and Johnson, Gospel of Luke, 172. On 10:25-37 as a controversy dialogue, see J. D. Crossan, "Parable and Example in the Teaching of Jesus," NTS 18 (1972): 285-307.

lSI On the importance of the lawyer's expectation that he could "do" something in order to inherit etemallife, see Schi1rmann, 2: 131-332.

182 Note that the prepositional phrase Ev T

183 Summarizing the demands of the law as love for God and love for neighbor was common among the Jews of Jesus' (and Luke's) day. See J. Ian McDonald, "Rhetorical Issue and Rhetorical Strategy in Luke 10:25-37 and Acts 10:11-18," Rhetoric and the New Testament (Sheffield: Academic Press, 1993),63; Schmid, 278-79; and Nolland, Luke, 580-83.

184 John J. KilgaJlen argues that the lawyer's real test of Jesus begins with this question and that the earlier question about eternal life was used merely to set the stage for this more 136 In reply to that question, the Lukan Jesus gives an "eloquent, though indirect, answer"185 by telling the parable of the "Good Samaritan" (vv. 30_35).186 In the now familiar story, a Jewish priest and a Levite, who are traveling from Jerusalem to Jericho, pass by a wounded man without offering him aid, probably due to their fear that this "half-dead" man (illuEluvfj, v. 30) would have the audacity to die in their presence and leave them unfit for temple service. 187 Jesus' story then continues by relating how a Samaritan, in contrast to the priest and Levite and no doubt to the chagrin of the lawyer, cared for the wounded man and provided generously for his ongoing fmancial needs (vv. 34-35). Not only did the Samaritan give the inn keeper two denarii (probably enough to cover a three week convalescence at the innI88), but he also promised to supply whatever additional funds were necessary to cover the wounded man's expenses.

Having finished the parable, Jesus asks the lawyer: "Which of these three appears to you to have become a neighbor to the one who fell among thieves?" (v. 36). Jesus' reframing of the lawyer's earlier question ('Who is my neighbor?") has shown the inadequacy of the lawyer's question. The lawyer wanted to define

difficult test question. See the "The Plan of the 'NOMIK02;' (Luke 10.25-37)," NTS 42 (1996): 615-19.

ISS "Jesus did not give the lawyer a direct answer, because his question was a bad question. Even a heathen ought to know who is his neighbor without being told. How much more a member of the people of God-and most of all one whose job it is to study and to teach the Law!" C. E. B. Cranfield, "The Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37)," TToday II (1954): 368-70.

186 Critical readers generally agree that the parable and its introduction were originally preserved separately and that Luke has placed them together in this context. See Nolland, Luke, 580 and Talbert, Reading Luke, 121. In contrast to the consensus, see William Richard Stegner, "The Parable of the Good Samaritan and Leviticus 18:5," The Living Text (New York: University of America Press, 1985),27-38; Birger Gerhardsson, The Good Samaritan-The Good Shepherd (Lund: C. W. K. Gleerup, 1958),23-31; and Marshall, Gospel a/Luke, 445-46.

1&7 See J. Mann, "Jesus and the Sadducean Priests, Luke 10:25-37," JQR 6 (1915): 415- 22; J. Duncan Derrett, "Law in the New Testament: Fresh Light on the Parable of the Good Samaritan," NTS II (1964-65): 22-37; and Fitzmyer, Gospel According to Luke, 883.

laa See Douglas E. Oakman, "The Buying Power of Two Denarii," Forum 3 (1987): 33- 38. 137 neighbor (Who is my neighbor and consequently who is not my neighbor?); Jesus wanted to know who became (YEYOllEllat) a neighbor (Who behaved like a neighbor to the stranger and consequently did away with the distinction between neighbor and non-neighbor?).189

The lawyer, who was unwilling even to utter the word Samaritan,190 acknowledged the obvious by answering, "The one who provided mercy to him" (v. 37). Jesus then concluded the encounter by commanding the lawyer: "Go, and you do likewise" (v. 37).191 Thus the point of the parable within the context of the third gospel is clear. Just as the Samaritan put himself and his economic resources in the service of his fellow human being, even a person who had neither the inclination nor capacity to return his acts of mercy, so also must the reader do. 192 Although the parable greatly emphasizes the demand for generosity on the part of those who would obey Jesus' words, it also assumes that tllOse persons will possess sufficient financial resources from which to fund their generosity toward the needy. A familiar textual strategy has therefore once again

189 This shift of the central question under consideration has been pointed out by many interpreters. E.g., Schmithals, Lukas, 128; Ellis, 160; Alois Steger, The Gospel According to Luke (London: Bums and Oats, 1969),207; Johnson, Gospel of Luke, 173; Talbert, Reading Luke, 122; Fitzmyer, Gospel According to Luke, 884; Schiirmann, 2: 147; Kremer, 121; Marshall, Gospel of Luke, 447; L. Paul Trudinger, "Once Again, Now, 'Who is my Neighbor?'" EvQ 37 (1976): 160- 63; and Jan Lambrecht, "The Message of the Good Samaritan (Lk 10:25-37)," LS 5 (1974): 121- 22.

190 On the lawyer's unwillingness to utter the word "Samaritan," see Fitzmyer, Gospel According to Luke, 883; William Arndt, Luke (St. Louis: Concordia, 1956),291-92; Robert H. Stein, Luke (Nashville: Broadman, 1992),318; and Schweizer, 187. Cf. K. Haacker, "Samaritan," NIDNTT (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978),3: 455.

191 Note that the placement of the pronoun in the second half of the command (lTOPEUOU Kat au lTOtEL 0lllwS) emphasizes that he, the lawyer, should "do" (cf. v. 25) as the Samaritan has done.

192 Nolland, Luke, 588-92, 597-98, has suggested that the reader is to go and do like the victim in this story by letting the Samaritan become a neighbor. Also see James G. Gordon, "The Parable of the Good Samaritan (St. Luke x.25-37): A Suggested Reorientation," ExpTim 56 (1944-45): 302-04. Also see Geoffrey Bum, "The Parable of the Bad Exegete: A Note on Luke 10:29-37," ExpTim III (2000): 299-300. This reading is implausible, however, because it fails to account for the fact that the lawyer's answer (v. 36) explicitly points toward the Samaritan who provides mercy, not the wounded man who receives mercy. 138 appeared as the ethic of self-impoverishment which could be mistakenly inferred from the severity of the missionary requirements has proven implausible in light of the subsequent words and deeds of a reliable character and an ethic of generosity has been offered in its place.

C) Greed and Discipleship (Luke 11: 1-12:48)

The eleventh chapter, which contains a series of teachings on prayer, an exorcism, a controversy story, and a series of woes against the Pharisees and lawyers, never brings issues of wealth and poverty into thematic emphasis. Although Jesus mentions the Pharisees' excessive commitment to the practice of tithing within his woes, this denunciation focuses upon their failure to practice the 'justice and love of God" (11 :42); Jesus' mention of tithing is included only for the sake of comparison and offers no important new perspectives on issues of wealth and poverty. The reference to tithing makes one simple point: Tithing of common herbs (even those technically exempt from any legal obligation of

193 tithing ) is commendable, but trivial when compared to the truly important matters of justice and love. Issues of wealth and poverty do not become thematic until Jesus is asked to settle a dispute over a family inheritance194 in the twelfth chapter.

While Jesus was addressing the crowds, a certain man came to him and demanded that Jesus direct his brother to divide195 the family inheritance with him

193 Rue, as a wild plant, was not subject to the tithe. See Marshall, Gospel ofLuke, 496- 98.

194 On the implausible suggestion that the inheritance in question is not a family inheritance of money and property, but rather Israel's inheritance of the Kingdom of God, see Timothy Gorringe, "A Zealot Option Rejected?" ExpTim 98 (1987): 267-70.

19S In keeping with the customs of fITSt century Palestine, the man probably lived on inherited property with his brother and shared its produce. The man's request was, therefore, probably not motivated by the desire to acquire increased property rights, power and prestige for himself. See J. Duncan M. Derrett, "The Rich Fool," NTS 7 (1961): 31-51. 139 (12:13). The man's request was not for arbitration or ajust settlement, but rather for a directive from the "Teacher" against his brother: "say to my brother" (v. 13).196 Instead of granting the man's request, however, Jesus took the opportunity to warn the crowdsl97 to beware of "every form of covetousness," reminding his hearers that a human being's life is not dependent upon the abundance of possessions (v. 15).198

This warning against an attitude of covetousness is consistent with the condemnation of greed which the reader has found running throughout the narrative up to this point and the warning therefore conforms to the reader's expectations. The parable of the rich fool (12:16-20), which elaborates on Jesus' warning about greed (v. 15),199 likewise conforms to the reader's expectations. In the parable, a rich man is faced with a surplus of production from his land. 20o He is forced to ask himself, "What shall I do? I do not have a place to store my produce" (v. 17). The man's subsequent plans, however, reveal that his problem was not where to stOre his produce, but rather where to store his surplus produce. Because he is faced with this unanticipated surplus, the rich man decides to destroy his existing storage facilities and build larger ones (v. 18). He believes that after he has completed this demolition and reconstruction, he will

1% See Plummer, 322.

197 "Needed is not a casuistic settlement by a 'teacher,' but a realization that covetousness is at the root of such family disputes." Fitzmyer, Gospel According to Luke, 969.

198 In spite of "clumsy grammar" in verse 15, Marshall, Gospel o/Luke, 523, is correct to note that "[t]he meaning is in any case clear. The real life of a man is not dependent on the abundance (lTEPlQ"(1EUw, 9:17), or perhaps superfluity, of his possessions." Also see Abraham J. Malherbe, "The Christianization ofa Topos (Luke 12:13-14)," NovT38 (1996): 121-32.

199 Fitzmyer, Gospel According to Luke, 971, accurately describes the parable as "commentary" upon Jesus' warning about the danger of greed (v. 15).

200 On the importance of understanding that the farmer faced the problem of surplus and not that of normal production and storage, see Petzke, 118 and George E. Nickelsburg, "Riches, The Rich, and God's Judgment in I Enoch and the Gospel according to Luke," NTS 25 (1979): 334. 140 possess adequate provisions for many years to come, and will be able to take his rest, to eat, to drink and to be merry (v. 19). In the climax of the parable, however, God pronounces the man a "fool" and informs him that he will die201 that very night.202 Then God, in a sarcastic allusion back to the earlier question about inheritance (v. 12),203 asks the rich fool who will get his carefully prepared bounty when he is dead (v. 20). The answer to this question is, of course, irrelevant, because this rhetorical question serves as a subtle reminder that all of the rich man's carefully stored surplus will someday become some other person's property. The question is thus used to accentuate further the man's foolishness.

Even though Jesus' closing commentary makes clear that "the one who collects treasure for oneself cannot also be rich before God" (v. 21), the parable is not primarily a condemnation of greed, avarice and the desire to acquire

2 4 increasingly larger amounts ofpossessions. 0 After all, the fool is satisfied with the bounty which he has already accumulated. He plans to cease from his labor (avmTauou, v. 19) and enjoy what he has already stored away. Nor is the parable primarily a condemnation of the fool's selfishness and unwillingness to share with

201 Although this parable assumes the individual eschatology which is characteristic of the third gospel (see SChmithals, Lukas, 136-37 and Kremer, 136), it is a mistake to conclude with Evans, Saint Luke, 521, that the parable is concerned only with the eschatological crisis brought on by the approach of the Kingdom of God and, therefore, provides the reader with no ethical exhortations about wealth. The emphasis upon covetousness and the abundance of possessions in the verse immediately preceding the parable (v. IS) renders Evans's reading implausible.

202 Note the irony that the fool who believes that he has made appropriate plans to supply everything that he will need for "many years" (v. 19) is unprepared for what will be required from him ''this night" (TaUT(] T(] VUKTL, v. 20). See Evans, Saint Luke, 523.

20) See Petzke, 118.

204 E.g., Talbert, Reading Luke, 141, interprets this parable as a condemnation of hoarding possessions for oneself. Similarly, Malherbe, "Christianization of a Topos," 132, finds the condemnation of a "self-centered (\lou), acquisitive covetous man given to gathering (crUVciYElV) superfluities." Malherbe suggests that the condemnation of greed which appears in this parable has parallels within the condemnations of greed which were common within Greco­ Roman (particularly Stoic) literature. 141 others,205 because other people's needs are mentioned neither in the parable itself (vv. 16-20) nor in Jesus' subsequent comments (v. 21). Rather the reader finds the primary point of the parable in the fool's misplaced confidence. As Luke Johnson explains, "The man is rich because he had many crops. He was a fool because he thought they secured his life 'for many years to come.',,206 The rich man is not called a thief, hoarder, or glutton,207 but a fool. His foolishness lies in his mistaken belief that the acquisition of material goods can secure his future, that security can be achieved via his own cleverly devised plans and carefully stored provisions.20s

The reader thus notes that this parable, like earlier perspectives in the narrative, does not directly criticize the rich for their possession of wealth, but rather criticizes a particular attitude held by the wealthy. As Christopher Tuckett concludes about this parable: "It is thus not so much, or not only, riches and possessions as such that is crucial: it is the attitude of the person towards God.,,209 The attitude toward God which earns the "fool" his dubious title is, in this case, the belief that security is found in material abundance. The rich fool is not condemned for possessing, or even for amassing, wealth but rather for his foolish assumption that his wealth could secure a future for him, that the treasure which he had stored up could-in the most meaningful sense-maintain his life.

205 E.g., Danker, Jesus and the New Age, 149, suggests that "Luke's description is that of the man who forgets God (Psalm 14:1) and, content with his monopoly, refuses to use his bounty for the benefit of others." Similarly, Fitzmyer, Gospel According to Luke, 974; Nolland, Luke, 687; and Bock, Luke, 1152. The suggestion of Petzke, 118, that the fool is hoarding produce in order to get a higher price for it later is a conjecture with no support within the parable itself.

206 Johnson, Gospel ofLuke, 20 I.

207 "There is no hint of avarice, cheating, or immorality ....this man's additional wealth fell into his lap, he came by his wealth honestly." Bock, Luke, 1151.

208 See Schmid, 316.

209 Tuckett, Luke, 103. 142 This theme of security (and anxiety) in regard to the future is extended into the subsequent verses210 as Jesus warns his disciples: "Do not be anxious about your life, what you eat, or your body, what you wear" (v. 22). Whereas the man inquiring about his inheritance was warned to beware of greed and was reminded that life does not consist in the abundance of possessions (v. 15), the disciples are warned not to be anxious and are reminded that life is composed of more than necessities like food and clothing (vv. 22-23).211 Whereas the rich man was pronounced a fool because he had developed a false sense of security from his accumulated provisions, the disciples are warned about the anxiety that results from "insecurity with respect to such basic needs as food and clothing.,,212 The disciples are reminded that God feeds the birds213 and clothes the flowers of the field214 and may therefore be relied upon to provide the necessities of life for human beings (vv. 24-31).

J. Duncan M. Derrett has noted the irony that "Luke 12,22-32 is obviously intended to allay anxiety, but has not ceased to cause it.,,215 Although this has no

210 Plummer, 325, notes the common theme of trust in God versus trust in self which provides a "logical" connection between the parable and the following verses. Cf. Marshall, Gospelo/Luke,525.

211 On the parallels between Luke 12:22-32 and Matthew 6:25-33 and their possible common source, see Richard J. Dillon, "Ravens, Lilies, and the Kingdom of God (Matthew 6:25- 33ILuke 12:22-31)," CBQ 53 (1991): 604-27 and Michael G. Steinhauser, "The Sayings on Anxieties: Matt 6:25-34 and Luke 12:22-32," Forum 6 (1990): 67-79.

212 Tannehill, Sword, 61-62.

213 The frequency of famine in the Greco-Roman world cannot be determined with great accuracy. It is probably accurate to conclude that famine was rare (and almost always associated with siege, drought or other temporary conditions), but that food shortages were common. See Peter Garnsey, Famine and Food Supply in the Graeco-Roman World (Cambridge: University Press, 1988), 17-39. Cf. Finley, Ancient Economy, 127. At any rate, Tinsley, 140, is correct to note that the third gospel "assumes that basic food and clothing are available."

214 On the possible flowers to which the third gospel is referring, see Gloria M. Suess, "'Lilies of the Field,'" Jerusalem Perspective 46-47 (1994): 18-23.

215 "Birds of the Air and Lilies of the Field," Downside Review 105 (1987): 181, emphasis Derrett's. 143 doubt been the case, it does not need to be. The reader has learned that the third gospel, up to this point in the narrative, has promoted an ethic of freedom from greed and generosity toward others; in these directives, the condemnation of greed has again become thematic. In his reply to the man seeking an inheritance,

Jesus warned against "every form of greed" (rruOTjS' 1TXEovE~[aS', v. 15).216 Then in the following verses, he discussed different aspects of greed. The rich man was declared a "fool" because he mistakenly believed that abundance offered him security; the disciples are warned not to be anxious (or insecure) over their perceived lack of abundance. In each case, Jesus was attacking a manifestation of the covetous notion that human security is found in the abundance of possessions. The rich "fool" believed that he had found security via his abundance; the disciples could be faced with the temptation to feel insecurity and anxiety over their lack of abundance. In both cases, the underlying (and foolish) assumption is the same: security is found in the abundance of possessions. Jesus condemns both forms of greed, finding security III abundance and experiencing anxiety over the lack of abundance. It would be as foolish for the disciples to be anxious over their perceived lack of abundance as it was for the rich man to find false security in the perceived abundance of his possessions.

The subsequent command to sell your possessions and give alms (TIwXijaaTE Tel lmuPXOVTa UflWV Kat: 86TE EAE-rW0aVvTjV, v. 33) must be read in light of this context. Only the person who is freed from the mistaken notion that security may be obtained via material possessions is able to practice generosity, to sell possessions and give alms. With this internal frame of reference, this

216 On the use of an adjectival nuS" with a singular, anarthrous noun to mean "including everything belonging, in kind, to the class designated by the noun every kind oj, all sorts oj," see BAGD, "nuS"," emphasis Bauer's. Also see Fitzmyer, Gospel According to Luke, 971; Johnson, Gospel of Luke, 198; Evans, Saint Luke, 522; Marshall, Gospel of Luke, 522-23; Bock, Luke, 1150; and Plummer, 323. 144 directive is not a call to self-impoverishment or "complete poverty.,,217 Nor is it primarily about "making use of one's resources in a way that benefits others."218 Rather it is about the relative value of material possessions and about securing treasures in heaven where the vagaries of this world do not threaten their security (v. 33c). When the readers neither draw a false sense of security from their abundance of possessions nor suffer anxiety about their lack of abundance, they are free to sell possessions and to give alms since they do not derive their security from the abundance of possessions but rather from the heavenly father's promise of the kingdom (v. 32), a promise which provides the basis for the subsequent parables and sayings about eschatological preparedness and faithfulness (vv. 33-48).219

Within the eleventh and twelfth chapters, the reader has both been able to establish clearer connections between differing textual perspectives and has also been challenged by partial negations of his emerging gestalt. On the one hand, the association in this context between the theme warning against covetousness and the theme demanding generosity (as demonstrated by the directive to sell possessions and give alms) has enabled the reader to formulate a connection between these two recurring themes. The reader has concluded that freedom from greed (that is, freedom from the temptation to find security in the abundance of possessions) is the enabling force which allows the reader to practice an ethic of generosity. Only in this context has the reader been able to

217 E.g., Evans, Saint Luke, 531 and Engelbert Neuhliusler, "AHem Besitz entsagen," Anspruch und Antwort Gottes (DUsseldorf: Patmos, 1962), 170-85.

218 Bock, Luke, 1167.

219 At the conclusion of the parables and sayings, Jesus warns that much will be expected from the one who has been entrusted with much (v. 48). Although this saying could be applied to financial possessions (e.g., S. van Tilborg, "An Interpretation from the Ideology of the Text," Neat 22 [1988]: 205-15), this generalized principle could also be referring to the stewardship of knowledge (e.g., Bock, Luke, 1185-86; Nolland, Luke, 704; and Fitzmyer, Gospel According to Luke, 992), truth (e.g., Evans, Saint Luke, 538 and Schmithals, Lukas, 148) or spiritual authority (e.g., Schweizer, 214 and Johnson, Gospel a/Luke, 205). 145 formulate clear connections between these recurring themes. On the other hand, this same directive to sell one's possessions and to give alms to the poor has partially negated the reader's earlier conclusion that the third gospel uses economic nomenclature only to speak metaphorically and soteriologically. Here, for the first time, the term "poor" has clear reference to the literal poor. Additionally, the term has not, as in its earlier appearances, been used to illustrate how God relates to the (spiritually or metaphorically) poor, but rather has been used to explain how the reader is to relate to the literally poor. The reader is to divest himself of an undetermined amount of his possessions so that he is able to give alms to the poor. The reader remains uncertain about how many possessions are to be sold. Although the reader does not expect the third gospel to begin espousing an ethic of self-impoverishment, he is uncertain what amount of selling is envisaged by the third gospel. Only further reading can address this uncertainty.

D) Hospitality and Discipleship (13:1-14:35)

Issues of wealth and poverty fade into the horizon without fulfilling (or even further addressing) the reader's desire to discern the perimeters of the seIling and giving envisaged in the twelfth chapter. No significant new perspectives on these issues are offered in the thirteenth chapter. Issues of wealth and poverty do not again become thematic until the fourteenth chapter of the third gospel when Jesus uses the occasion of a shared meaj220 to give instructions221 about attending

220 The scene in Lk 14:1-24, especially vv. 7-24, is frequently compared to a philosophical symposium (e.g., Nolland, Luke, 745-46; Evans, Saint Luke, 568; and Johnson, Gospel of Luke, 225-26), but Willi Braun has persuasively argued that Jesus' attitude toward his host gives the scene greater affinity with Cynic "anti-symposium" rhetoric like that found in Lucian of Samosata. See "Symposium or Anti-Symposium? Reflections on Luke 14:1-24," Toronto Journal of Theology 8 (1992): 70-84 and Feasting and Social Rhetoric in Luke 14 (Cambridge: University Press, 1995).

221 Fitzmyer, Gospel According to Luke, 1044-45, is correct to note that "despite the Lucan introductory expression, 'parable,' Jesus' sayings recorded here [14:7-11] are to be regarded form-critically as hortatory counsels, to which a wisdom-saying (v. 11) has been 146 and hosting banquets (vv. 7-14). First, Jesus directs those who are invited to a wedding feast (rail-OS, v. 8)222 not to seek out places of honor for themselves but rather to wait until their host or hostess comes to them and says, "Friend, go up higher" (v. 10). This first directive, which emphasizes the importance of not engaging in self promotion, is consistent with the earlier theme of not overestimating one's own worthiness (7:1-10) and it thus conforms to the reader's expectations. The second directive likewise conforms to the reader's expectations, but it does so by echoing a different theme, the theme of generosity. Jesus gives his host (and, by extension, all potential hosts) directions for assembling a guest list, explaining:

When you provide a midday meal (apwTov) or evening meal (8ElTIVOV), do not invite your friends or your siblings or your relatives or wealthy neighbors lest they invite you in return and you are repaid. On the contrary, when you give a feast (80Xrlv), call the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind (vv. 12-13).223 These instructions, like the earlier calls to generosity in Jesus' directives concerning loans and gifts (6:30-34), explicitly reject the Greco-Roman principle of reciprocity224 and call for a hospitality which "is given, not exchanged.'>225 Yet these instructions are important to the reader not only because they call for the reader to be "unconditionally generous,,,226 but also because they assume appended. The same characterization can be used for the saying in vv. 12-14, which is in no way parabolic."

222 Although ')'01105' is nonnally associated with either a wedding or marriage, in this context it is possible that the word connotes a feast without any reference to a wedding. See BAGD, ",),01105'."

223 Note that one is to invite the helpless to one's feasts (80X~v) while persons from one's own social circle are not to be invited even to one's everyday meals (apl(JTov and &eliTVOV).

224 The challenge which these directives posed to the standards and practices of Greco­ Roman society with its established principle of reciprocity has been widely noted. E.g., Nolland, Luke, 751; Bock, Luke, 1266; Marshall, Gospel of Luke, 584; Schmid, 352-53; and Johnson, GospelofLuke,227.

225 Bock, Luke, 1266.

226 Schweizer, 236. 147 that those who hear these instructions possess the social standing and financial resources necessary to sustain generosity and inclusion in such a manner.227

The motif of banquets provides the link to the parable of the great supper (14: 16-24), which immediately follows the instructions to those attending and hosting banquets. In the parable, Jesus explains that the persons who were originally invited to a banquet declined the invitation and made excuses, claiming their need to tend to a field, to some oxen or to a new bride (vv. 18-20). In his disgust that the invited guests would spurn his invitation on account of their preoccupation with the mundane (financial) concerns of this world,228 the host of the banquet instructs his servants to bring in "the poor, and maimed, and blind and lame" (v. 21). If the parable, which is primarily a condemnation of Jewish rejection of the Christian message,229 has any bearing on issues of wealth and poverty, it is not found merely in the idea that "outcasts and subclasses,,23o will

227 "In 14,12-14 Jesus is not simply instructing the host to give charity to the poor, which might gain honor for the donor and his family, but to invite the poor and disabled to an important social occasion, thereby giving them the honor normally reserved for family and social peers." Robert C. Tannehill, "The Lukan Discourse on Invitations (Luke 14,7-14)," The Four Gospels, ed. F. van Segbroeck, C. M. Tuckett, G. van Belle and J. Verheyden (Leuven: University Press, 1992),1613. Also see Braun, Feasting and Social Rhetoric, 54-61.

228 Even the excuse of having just been married may be primarily a financial expression, meaning that the groom must now take control of and order his wife's property and financial concerns. See Braun, Feasting and Social Rhetoric, 76-79. Also see W. Gregory Carey, "Excuses, Excuses: The Parable of the Banquet (Luke 14:15-24) Within the Larger Context of Luke," ISS 17 (1995): 177-87.

229 "It [the parable and commentary in vv. 16-24] follows the outline of salvation history presented in the narrative of Luke-Acts. The many in Israel had been invited to the messianic banquet through God's messengers (the prophets). When the time for the banquet came, God sent his servant (Jesus-Acts 4:27; 3:26; and his disciples) to say, 'Come,' but when the announcement was made, those invited refused because they were preoccupied with the common ventures of life (cf. Luke 17:26-30). Faced with refusal by the Jewish leaders, the Lord turned first to the outcasts among the Jews (cf. 15:1-2), then to the Gentiles." Talbert, Reading Luke, 197-98.

230 Fitzmyer, Gospel According to Luke, 1057. 148 respond positively to the eschatological message,231 but also in the fact that those who were originally invited were not excluded because of their possessions and family commitments. It was not their possession of land and oxen which prevented their response. Rather it was the fact that they made those possessions and commitments a higher priority than the banquet which prompted their eventual exclusion from the banquet (v. 24).

Jesus moves from this parable about those whose mistaken priorities excluded them from the eschatological banquet to a discussion of the cases in which mistaken priorities could exclude one from discipleship in the present (vv. 25-33). Jesus lists three areas of unwillingness which can make discipleship impossible (ou 8UVaTat ElvaC \l-0U \l-aEhlnlS', vv. 26, 27, 33). First, in an obviously hyperbolic saying, Jesus insists that anyone who does not "hate" (\l-LO"EW) his or her family and even his or her own life cannot be his disciple (v. 26).232 Second, Jesus, in an obviously metaphorical saying, Jesus asserts that anyone who does not bear his or her cross cannot be his disciple (v. 27). Then Jesus prefaces his third discipleship saying with two analogies, one of a builder who sits down and considers the cost before proceeding to build a tower (v. 28) and another of a king who sits down and considers the possibilities for success before proceeding to attack an opponent (v. 31). Having provided these examples, Jesus draws the inference:

In this manner, therefore, any of you who does not renounce all of his or her possessions cannot be my disciple.

oiiTwS' ouv TUS' E~ U\l-C,lV oS' OUK cmoTcl

231 "There is no thought that this list of needy people will consider refusing the invitation (Matthew has them invited, but Luke simply has them brought): concerns with the affairs of life do not have the same hold upon these needy people." Nolland, Luke, 757.

232 Nolland, Luke, 763, observes that the inclusion of one's self in this list of persons to be hated "makes it quite clear that neither psychological hostility nor sectarian separation is in view." 149 Although this saying may be read as a demand for "absolute poverty,"233 the internal frame of reference makes that reading extremely implausible for two reasons. On the one hand, the two parallel sayings about "hating" one's family and self (v. 26) and about bearing one's cross (v. 27) are clearly not literal directives. Renouncing one's possessions does not necessarily result in literal poverty any more than hating one's family necessarily results in abandoned children or than bearing one's cross necessarily results in literal crucifixion. On the other hand, the analogies offered for comparison emphasize the forethought and cognitive analysis of the builder and the king. Each first sits down and examines his situation (vv. 28, 31). Their activity is purely cognitive and entails an examination of the consequences of their anticipated commitment. The force ofthe comparison is, as Earle Ellis explains: "no prudent man would build a 'tower' or go to 'war' without estimating the 'cost,' so no one should assume the responsibilities of discipleship lightly.,,234

The warning that whoever does not renounce everything cannot be Jesus' disciple has, therefore, been qualified by use of a textual strategy similar to those found earlier in the third gospel. At earlier points in the narrative ambiguous statements with the potential to imply the advocacy of an ethic of self­ impoverishment were placed within an internal frame of reference which made their advocacy of self-impoverishment implausible for those seeking a consistent reading. In this case, the hyperbolic and metaphorical character of the warnings about hating persons and bearing crosses provides an internal frame of reference which prevents the reader from interpreting the warning about renouncing one's possession as a literal command to impoverish one's self. The

233 Evans, Saint Luke, 579. Similarly, Thomas E. Schmidt, "Burden, Barrier, Blasphemy," TJ9 (1988): 171-88, especially 181.

234 Ellis, 195. On the use of the comparative OUTWS' (v. 33), see Carolyn Osiek, Rich and Poor in the Shepherd ofHennas, CBQMS 15 (Washington: Catholic Biblical Association, 1983), 27. 150 analogies of the mental activities of the builder and king, then, further prevent misreading the renouncement saying.

Up to this point in the narrative, the reader has discovered textual perspectives which have both affirmed and challenged his emerging gestalt that the ethic introduced by John the Baptist (generosity toward others and freedom from one's own greed, 3:10-14) provides an adequate summary of the economic demands which the consistent reader could reasonably infer from reading the third gospel. On the one hand, this emerging gestalt has gained increased plausibility throughout the reading process as the Baptist's themes of generosity and greedlessness have become interrelated and as the implausibility of inferring an ethic of self-impoverishment has continued to be affirmed. On the other hand, alien associations and unresolved questions remain. Although tentative conclusions have been developed to explain the uncharacteristic severity of the economic instructions given to the envoys before their missionary journeys, both these instructions and the disciples' vocational abandonment remain somewhat alien to the reader's emerging gestalt. More fundamentally, however, the reader wishes to determine the scale of generosity envisaged by the third gospel. In the terms of the earlier narrative, how much is one to sell and give away (12:33)? How much may the receptive reader retain for personal use? Although neither explicit connections for these alien associations nor exact answers for these questions can be expected from the narrative, the reader may anticipate some guidance as additional textual perspectives are discovered through further reading.

Bringing Closure to the Reading (Luke 15-24)

The final third of the third gospel moves increasingly swiftly toward Jesus' confrontation with the authorities in Jerusalem and his death on the cross. Because of the intensity of the third gospel's focus on the events in Jerusalem, issues of wealth and poverty are less prominent in these final chapters, particularly after Jesus' entry into Jerusalem in the nineteenth chapter. Yet 151 these final chapters are important to the reader because both the parables which Jesus tells and the encounters which he has before and after his entry into Jerusalem provide closure for the reader's emerging gestalt.

A) Parables (Luke 15:1-18:17)

After a series of three parables in which things (including a son who had squandered his father's possessions on immoral living) are "lost" and "found" (15:1-32), economic themes again become prominent in the parables of chapter sixteen. The parable in the opening verses of chapter sixteen has attracted a great deal of attention from critical readers in large measure because of the surprising conduct of its two central characters, a steward and his master (vv. 1-9). While the master is in the process of dismissing the steward for inappropriate handling of the estate's economic affairs,235 the steward evaluates his position236 and has "a flash of discovery.,,237 He decides to visit persons who are substantially indebted to his master's estate238 and to lower significantly their financial indebtedness to the master. The servant expects, in keeping with the culturally accepted principle of reciprocity, that by these actions, he will make these partially forgiven debtors socially indebted239 to himself. When the master learns of the steward's activities, he240 praises the steward's shrewdness. The

23S The steward has squandered the master's property (8woKop'IT1(wv TU imuPxovTa aUTou, v. 1) as the prodigal had done with his inheritance in the earlier parable (15: 13).

236 The steward's rhetorical question ("What shall I do?" [v. 3]) "is the question Luke thinks appropriate to a crisis." Johnson, Gospel ofLuke, 244.

237 Farrar, St. Luke, 264.

238 "The master is dealing with large-scale business associates here, not with ordinary economic levels." Nolland, Luke, 799.

239 The parable assumes that the debtors will be obligated to the servant in keeping with the traditional Greco-Roman nonns of reciprocity. See Nolland, Luke, 805; Johnson, Gospel of Luke, 244; Farrar, St. Luke, 264; and Schmid, 372.

240 A few readers have argued that the parable ends at verse seven and that the "lord" who praised the steward (v. 8a) must therefore have been Jesus (e.g., Ellis, 199 and Kremer, 162). 152 problem for many readers has been, as Colin Brown explains, that "[o]n the face of it the steward looks like a junk-bond artist who not only saves his skin by defrauding his master, but wins praise from doing SO,,24 1 or, as Douglas Parrott states more bluntly, "Jesus seems to be holding up a criminal act as an example to be emulated.,,242

The idea that Jesus would use a dishonest person as an example of Christian conduct has proven very difficult for many readers to accept. In order to alleviate this uneasiness, some readers have suggested that the steward's dishonest activity was limited to his initial squandering of the master's resources (v. 1) and that his act of reducing the debts involved no dishonesty at all. These readers either argue that the steward's reduction of debts merely eliminated his own commissions on the debts and therefore cost his master nothini43 or else that the steward's reduction of the debts eliminated only the illegal interest which the master had unjustly charged. 244 Other readers have argued that the master's praise

Most readers have, however, regarded the praise of the steward's actions as an important climax to the parable and, therefore, as words uttered by the master of the estate. E.g., Fitzmyer, Gospel According to Luke, 1096-97; Marshall, Gospel of Luke, 619-20; Richard R. Caemmerer, "Investment for Eternity," CTM 34 (1963): 69-76; William Loader, "Jesus and the Rogue in Luke 16,I-8a," RB 96 (1989): 518-32; Bock, Luke, 1332; Nolland, Luke, 800-01; Stanley E. Porter, "The Parable of the Unjust Steward (Luke 16:1-13)," The Bible in Three Dimensions, ed. D. Clines (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990), 144-45; Johnson, Gospel ofLuke, 244; Farrar, St. Luke, 264; and Schmid, 372.

24\ "The Unjust Steward: A New Twist?" Worship, Theology and Ministry, ed. Michael J. Wilkins and Terrence Paige (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992), 121.

242 "The Dishonest Steward (Luke 16.1-8a) and Luke's Special Parable Collection," NTS 37 (1991): 499.

243 E.g., Paul Glichter, "The Parable of the Dishonest Steward after Oriental Conceptions," CBQ 12 (1950): 121-31; J. Volckaert, "The Parable of the Clever Steward," Clergy Monthly 17 (1954): 332-41; E. Hampden-Cook, "The Unjust Steward," ExpTim 16 (1904-05): 44; Fitzmyer, Gospel According to Luke, 1098; Ellis, 199; and Ronald A. Piper, "Social Background and Thematic Structure in Luke 16," The Four Gospels, 1637-62. Piper, 1653, even argues that the steward's reduction of debts signifies an act of repentance. Such efforts are unpersuasive for two reasons. First, the steward asks, "How much do you owe my master?" (v. 5). Second, the steward is explicitly described as unrighteous (ciOlKlUS, v. 8).

244 E.g., J. Duncan M. Derrett, "Fresh Light on St. Luke XVI: 1. The Parable of the Unjust Steward," NTS 7 (1961): 198-219; '''Take Thy Bond ... And Write Fifty' (Luke XVI.6): The 153 of the steward (v.8) and Jesus' subsequent admonishment to follow his example by making friends via unrighteous mammon (v. 9) are in fact ironic or sarcastic statements which highlight the ultimate futility of the steward's action since "friends" purchased with mere money will invariably prove unreliable.245 Many other readers have abandoned the Lukan context of the parable246 and sought more satisfying readings within the Sitz im Leben of Jesus' ministry, finding christological allegories,247 eschatological pronouncements,248 and rejections of the

Nature of the Bond," JTS 23 (1972): 438-40; C. B. Firth, "The Parable of the Unrighteous Steward (Luke XVLl-9)," E;r;pTim 63 (1951-52): 93-95; Justin S. Ukpong, "The Parable of the Shrewd Manager (Luke 16:1-13)," Semeia 73 (1996): 189-210; and Marshall, Gospel of Luke, 614-21. For a decisive rebuttal of attempts to deny the steward's dishonesty, see John J. Kloppenborg, "The Dishonoured Master (Luke l6,1-8a)," Bib 70 (1989): 475-94, especially 479-86.

24$ E.g., '''Make friends for yourselves,' he seems to taunt: 'imitate the example of the steward; use the unrighteous mammon; surround yourselves with the type of insincere, self­ interested friendship it can buy; how far will this carry you when the end comes and you are finally dismissed?'" Donald R. Fletcher, "The Riddle of the Unjust Steward: Is Irony the Key?" JBL 82 (1963): 29. Also see Porter, "Parable of the Unjust Steward," 148-49 and I. J. du Plessis, "Philanthropy or Sarcasm?" Neot 24 (1990): 1-20. This reading proves unpersuasive because it fails to appreciate the pervasiveness of the principle of reciprocity in the Greco-Roman world. On the one hand, there is no reason to doubt that the steward's reduction of debts did in fact provide him with earthly friends who could prevent him from being forced to "dig" or "beg" (v. 3). Given the external frame of reference of the Greco-Roman world, the reader may reasonably expect that those whose debts were reduced would have considered themselves indebted to the steward. On the other hand, the idea that God provides eschatological reciprocity for temporal acts of generosity is a recurring theme in the third gospel (e.g., 6:35; 12:33; 14: 14). There is no reason to doubt that both the steward's earthly patrons (vv. 4-7) and the eschatological friends of whom Jesus spoke (v. 9) will reciprocate sincerely.

246 A number of scholars have suggested that the parable as it stands within the third gospel has suffered either from a mistranslation of the Aramaic original (e.g., Pasquale Collela, "Zu Lk 16:7," ZNW 64 [1973]: 124-46 and H. F. B. Compston, "Friendship without Mammon," E;r;pTim 31 [1919-20]: 282) or from a corrupted Greek text (e.g., C. S. Mann, "Unjust Steward or Prudent Manager," E;r;pTim 102 [1991]: 234-35; R. Merkelbach, "Uber das Gleichnis vom ungerechten Haushalter (Lucas 16,1-13)," VC 33 [1979]: 180-81; and Parrott, 499-515).

247 E.g., Loader, "Jesus and the Rogue," 518-31 and Colin Brown, "The Unjust Steward: A New Twist," Worship, Theology and Ministry, ed. Michael J. Wilkins and Terrence Paige (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992), 121-45.

24& Evans, Saint Luke, 599, argues that the parable was originally about the end time crisis and "need not have been concerned with wealth as such." 154 Greco-Roman conception ofhonor49 when the parable is read within this frame of reference.

In spite of the widely varying readings250 which have resulted from

5 readers' uneasiness with accepting the actions of a dishonest servane ! as a positive example for Christian believers, the parable Cvv. I-8a), when read in light of Jesus' interpretive commentary which follows it in the third gospel (vv. 8b-13), simply calls readers to prudence.252 Receptive readers are encouraged to be as prudent in using their economic opportunities to secure their future heavenly well being as the dishonest steward was in using his economic opportunities to secure his future earthly well being. 253 Of course, the subsequent verse emphasizes that

249 Kloppenborg, "Dishonoured Master," 493, argues that the parable originally focused upon the actions of the master, who could praise the steward's resourcefulness even after the steward had twice dishonored the master (first by squandering his resources [v. I] and then by further reducing the debts [vv. 5-7]). The parable thus "celebrates the master's 'conversion' from the myopia of his society's system of ascribed honor."

250 For a complete survey of recent critical readings of this parable, see Dennis 1. Ireland, Stewardship and the Kingdom of God: An Historical, Exegetical and Contextual Study of the Parable of the Unjust Steward in Luke (Leiden: Brill, 1992), 5-47 and "A History of Recent Interpretation of the Parable of the Unjust Steward (Luke 16: 1-13)," WTJ 51 (1989): 293-318.

251 It is important to note that the motif of a clever, but unscrupulous, servant getting the best of his master was a common comic device within Greco-Roman literature. Modem confusion over this parable is due in part to an unfamiliarity with the appropriate external frame of reference. The steward's dishonesty would have been less distracting to ancient readers. See Bernard Brandon Scott, "A Master's Praise," Bib 64 (1983): 173-88 and Mary Ann Beavis, "Ancient Slavery as an Interpretive Context for the New Testament Servant Parables with Special Reference to the Unjust Steward (Luke 16: 1-&)," JBL III (1992): 37-54, especially 43-53.

252 The master praised the servant for acting prudently (POVlI1WS, v. 8), not for acting dishonestly. The point of the analogy is the prudent, not the dishonest, character of his actions.

25J "We cannot be wrong if we seize as the main lesson of the parable the one which Christ Himself attached to it (8-12), namely, the use of earthly gifts of wealth and opportunity for heavenly and not for earthly aims." Farrar, St. Luke, 263, emphasis Farrar's. This traditional interpretation is widely accepted. E.g., Ireland, Stewardship and the Kingdom of God, 48-115; Talbert, Reading Luke, 154-55; Noiland, Luke, 795-803; Schmidt, "Burden, Barrier, Blasphemy," 184; Brendan Byrne, "Forceful Stewardship and Neglected Wealth," Pacifica I (1988): 1-14; B. A. Hooley and A. 1. Maso, "Some Thoughts of the Parable of the Unjust Steward (Luke 16:1-9)," AusBR 6 (1958): 47-59; Johnson, Gospel of Luke, 245; FranCis E. Williams, "Is Almsgiving the Point of the 'Unjust Steward?'" JBL 83 (1964): 293-97; Marshall, Gospel of LlIke, 621; Schmid, 372; Bock, Luke, 1323-43; and Plummer, 381. 155 receptive readers, who are not mastered by money (v. 13), will use their financial

254 resources ("unrighteous mammon," v. 9 ) in a manner consistent with their eschatological interests (v. 9).

The exact manner in which the receptive reader is to use his or her financial resources is not specified,25S but the general principle being afflrmed, that is, that one's attitude toward and use of financial resources on earth have serious eschatological implications, is consistent with the reader's expectations. As the rhetorical question of verse 11 makes clear, those who are found unfaithful in their use of earthly possessions will not be trusted with things which are of true value.

Upon hearing this parable and Jesus' subsequent interpretive remarks, the Pharisees, whom the narrator castigates as "lovers of money" (16: 14),256 speak derisively of Jesus. Although the Pharisees' comments are not provided in the narrative, a string of loosely connected statements are provided both as Jesus' response to the Pharisees (vv. 15-18) and as an introduction to the parable which follows (vv. 19-31).257 After condemning the Pharisees for seeking to

254 MallwVU Ti)S" cioLKlaS" is used to emphasize the contrast between worldly wealth and those things which have eternal value. See Marshall, Gospel oJLuke, 623.

255 In commenting on verse nine, Fitzmyer, Gospel According /0 Luke, 1109, is correct to note that the reader is told neither how one is to make friends who will welcome one into eternal dwellings nor the identity of these friends. Some readers suggest that the "friends" are those who are (literally) poor (e.g., Richard H. Hiers, "Friends by Unrighteous Mammon: The Eschatological Proletariat," JAAR 38 [1970]: 30-36 and Byrne, 4), but the context emphasizes soteriological and eschatological categories (i.e., "eternal dwellings" [v. 9], faithfulness [vv. 9-10] and service to the master [v. 13]), not literal economic categories.

256 The expression ¢LAcipyupol urrcipxoVTES" may be a word play On the earlier expression ¢lAOUS" EK TOU llallWVU (16:9). Even without the added insult of the pun, the title "lover of money" was clearly pejorative. Its use as a pejorative is attested in the writings of many Greco­ Roman figures (e.g., Philo of Alexandria, Lucian, and Epictetus). See Joel B. Green, Gospel oj Luke, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997),601.

257 "Luke records a number of sayings, the connection of which cannot be determined beyond question but they seem to have been quoted by him as an introduction to the second of these parables, vs. 14-18." Charles R. Erdman, The Gospel oj Luke (philadelphia: Westminster, 1928), 149. 156 justify themselves before humanity/58 Jesus speaks about the role of the law. On the one hand, he afftrms that the law has not been voided by John's unveiling of a new eschatological age (v. 16) even though he affirms, on the other hand, that the arrival of this new eschatological age marks an important transitional point in how believers relate to God and the law (v. 15). Although the third gospel fails to clarify how these two affirmations are related to one another,259 the theme of the law and the prophets provides the connection to the parable which follows.

In the parable of the rich man and his brothers (vv. 19-31), Jesus sets the scene by describing the fate of two men with very different lives. One, Lazarus,260 is a beggar and the other, a nameless individual, is very rich. In a stereotyped contrast between this self-indulgent rich man and a needy poor man/61 the rich

258 The manner in which the third gospel and Acts characterize the Jews, their political and religious leaders, and their culture-fonning institutions has been an area of intense debate among Lukan scholars. For my assessment of the third gospel's characterization of the Jews, particularly its characterization of the Jewish leadership as those who seek to justify themselves, see Thomas E. Phillips, "Subtlety as a Literary Technique in Luke's Characterization of the Jews and Judaism," Literary Studies in Luke-Acts, ed. Richard P. Thompson (Macon: Mercer University Press, 1998), 313-26.

259 On the scholarly debate about how these verses influence one's understanding of the law and "salvation history" in the third gospel (and Acts), see Joseph B. Tyson, "Torah and Prophets in Luke-Acts: Temporary or Pennanent?" SBLSP, ed. Eugene H. Lovering (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992), 539-48. Tyson argues that the law continues to be nonnative for receptive readers of the third gospel, although the law is to be interpreted christo logically in the new eschatological age.

260 The name Lazarus is probably a Greek fonn of the Hebrew and Aramaic name Eleaser, which means "God helps." The name is widely regarded to have symbolic value. E.g., Roger Omanson, "Lazarus and Simon," BT 40 (1989): 416-17; Schmithals, Lukas, 170-71; Fitzmyer, Gospel According to Luke, 1131; Talbert, Reading Luke, 157; Nolland, Luke, 828; Ellis, 206; Bock, Luke, 1365-66; Marshall, Gospel ofLuke, 635; and Schweizer, 260.

261 Readers have found parallels to this story in many different types of Greco-Roman literature and traditions. Yet efforts to trace the story to any single sOUrce, whether Cynic traditions (e.g., Frank W. Hughes, "The Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus (Luke 16.19-31) and Graeco-Roman Rhetoric," Rhetoric and the New Testament, 29-41), or the Hebrew wisdom tradition (e.g., Egbert W. Seng, "Der reiche Tor," NovT 20 [1978J: 136-55), or the book of Deuteronomy (e.g., C. H. Cave, "Lazarus and the Lukan Deuteronomy," NTS 15 [1969]: 319-25), or folktales and mythology (e.g., Ronald F. Hock, "Lazarus and Micyllus," JBL 106 [1987]: 447- 63) have proven inconclusive. Although the story incorporates themes which were common throughout the Greco-Roman world, the parable is unlikely to be directly dependent upon any other single account. Rather it employs common stereotypical characterizations of the rich and 157 man is portrayed hosting great feasts and dressing lavishly. Lazarus, on the other hand, is portrayed as hungry and disease-ridden while at the very gates of the rich man's house.262 Both men die. From his place of post-mortem torment, the rich man sees Lazarus receiving comfort at Abraham's bosom. After the narrator has provided this narrative background for the parable's main action, the rich man responds to his situation by entering into conversation with Abraham (vv. 24-31).

The rich man first asks Abraham to provide him with relief from his suffering by sending Lazarus with water (v. 24). After reminding the rich man

how he and Lazarus had lived in their lifetimes (EV Tfi (wi'\ (YOU, v. 25), Abraham explains that God263 has placed an impenetrable barrier64 between the place of torments where the rich man resides and the place of comfort where Lazarus resides (v. 26).265 Having been denied any hope of reprieve for himself, the rich man begs Abraham to send Lazarus to warn (OWIlUPnJpoIlQL) his five

poor in order to provide the setting for its story. See Richard Bauckbarn, "The Rich Man and Lazarus," NTS 39 (1991): 225-46 and E. Pax, "Der Reiche und der anne Lazarus: Eine Mileustudie," Sludii Biblici Franciscani Liber Annus 25 (1975): 254-68.

262 Danker, Jesus and the New Age, 176, argues that the rich man must have provided food for Lazarus since "beggars are not directed to the homes of skinflints." However, the fact that Lazarus longed (EmOUJlEW, v. 21) to be fed the crumbs from rich man's table suggests that the rich man was indifferent to Lazarus' unfulfilled needs and desires. See Marshall, Gospel ofLuke, 636.

263 JlETa~U ilJlwv Kat UJlWV xdcrJla JlEya ecrnlPlKTUl (v. 26) employs a theological passive as is common in the third gospel.

264 On the Palestinian geological features which may provide the imagery for the xdcrJla between the rich man's abode and the abode of Lazarus, see Eric F. F. Bishop, "A Yawning Chasm," EvQ 45 (1973): 3-5.

26$ Schmid, 384, argues that divine judgments are rendered in this parable apart from any consideration of the ethical motivations of Lazarus and the rich man, that the rich man is sentenced to his tate simply because he was rich in his lifetime, and that Lazarus is granted blissfulness simply because he was poor in his lifetime. The subsequent dialogue in the parable, however, renders this reading implausible. As Johnson, Gospel ofLuke, 256, explains, "there was, in fact, a moral reason for this reversal. This man had not only been rich and extravagant, he had been hard of heart. His wealth had made him insensitive to the demands of the Law and Prophets alike that the covenant demands sharing goods with the poor." 158 brothers so that they will not join him in his torment (vv. 27-28). Abraham again refuses to honor his request, insisting that the brothers have Moses and the prophets if they will listen to them (v. 29). The rich man, who apparently assumes that his brothers are not currently listening to Moses and the prophets, protests that his brothers will begin listening if someone comes to them from the dead (v. 30). But Abraham insists that those who do not listen to Moses and the prophets would not be convinced even if one came to them from the dead (v. 31).266

Many readers find "two points" for the parable, one point about an eschatological reversal of fortunes (vv. 19-26) and a second point about the ethical warning provided by the law and prophets and (eventually) by the resurrection of Jesus (vv. 27_31).267 But such readings emphasize the reversal theme only by too quickly inferring normative implications from the conditions set forth in narrative background of the parable (vv. 19-23). The longer parables in the third gospel typically narrate a setting which describes the conditions to which the parable's main character responds. It is the character's response to the conditions set forth within the parable-and not the conditions themselves­ which prove determinative for the reader's understanding of the normative function of the respective parables. 268 In this parable, the rich man's reversal of

266 On the obvious allusion to the resurrection of Jesus, see Otto G lombitza, "Der reiche Mann und der arme Lazarus," NovT I 1(\970): 166-80 and Marshall, Gospel a/Luke, 613.

267 Fitzmyer, Gospel According to Luke, 1126-29. Also see Petzke, 148; Talbert, Reading Luke, 156-58; Evans, Saint Luke, 611-16; and Johnson, Gospel a/Luke, 255-56.

268 For example, when a steward is faced with dismissal from his job (16: I) he responds by reducing the debts of his master's business associates (16:2-8); the reader finds a course of action to be imitated in the steward's prudent actions. A farmer is faced with an unexpectedly abundant harvest (12:16) and then responds by deciding to build new storage facilities (12:17-21); the reader fmds a course of action to be avoided in the farmer's foolish response to material gain. The host of a great banquet is faced with an unreceptive guest list (14:16-20) and responds by expanding the guest list (14:21-23); the reader learns about the breadth of the divine initiative in salvation from the master's response to the problem of unreceptive guests. A Samaritan encounters a wounded man (10:30-33) and responds in compassion and generosity (10:34-35); the reader discovers what it means to be a neighbor by observing the Samaritan's response to the wounded man. 159 fortune provides the background conditions to which he responds. The normative claims of the parable are to be inferred from the rich man's dialogue with Abraham, not from the conditions which prompt the dialogue.269

The reader, who is sensitive to the non-parenetic function of the narrative background of the parables in the third gospel,270 understands that the parable is not teaching that all persons will experience a reversal of fortunes like those experienced by the rich man and Lazarus (any more than all persons will be beaten and left alongside the road [10:30-35], or will leave home and find themselves living in a pig pen [15:11-31], or will be forced to give an account of their mishandled accounts [16: 1-8]). Yet the reader also understands that the parable offers a significant warning about wealth.271 By insisting that the wealthy man's brothers need no further warning beyond that contained within Moses and the prophets, the parable is assuming, as John Nolland explains,

that there is a profound challenge to the social status quo to be found in the law and the prophets, and that there is a desperate need for the privileged to search out their stipulations and to act upon them.272 The reader therefore draws an eschatological warning similar to the one drawn from the parable of the unjust steward (16: 1-13). The manner in which one uses one's economic resources will be a decisive factor in the divine determination of one's eschatological destiny. No further warning is needed. The person who lives a life of unlimited self-indulgence while poor Lazarus lies

269 Even Fitzmyer, Gospel According to Luke, 1128, acknowledges that "the main stress in the parable lies in the second part [vv. 27-31)' Jesus' words are ... a warning to people like the brothers of the rich man."

210 Not all readers are sensitive in this manner. For an overview of critical readings of this parable, see Rudolfo Obermuller, "Las Miseria de un Rico," Los Pobres (Buenos Aires: La Aurora, 1978),45-66, especially 54-59.

211 "This story does not teach how the poor are saved. It concentrates on the question of why the rich man is lost. It is a warning to the rich and not a promise to the poor." Kvalbein,84. Also see Petzke, 147.

212 Nolland, Luke, 831. 160 starving and disease-ridden at his or her door step is in the same league with the priest and Levite who ignored the wounded man on the road (10:25-37). Anyone who can overlook such need has failed to listen to Moses and the prophets, even if he or she is eagerly attempting to justify himself or herself like the Pharisees (16:15). Such persons will receive no further warnings-because any additional warnings would also go unheeded (16:31 ).273

The parables in the sixteenth chapter have largely conformed to the reader's expectations by advocating an ethic of generosity.274 Although these parables have placed greater emphasis upon the eschatological implications of a failure to practice generosity, they have not helped to answer the reader's unresolved problem of quantity. That is, the reader wishes to know how much one is expected to give away. Although Jesus mentions tithing in a subsequent parable (18:9-14), the tither is certainly not a person to be emulated. The parable, which was addressed to those who had persuaded themselves that they were righteous (v. 9), depicts a Pharisee in the temple thanking God because he is not like other persons; he tithes and fasts (vv. 11-12).275 Yet this parable does not help to resolve the quantity problem because even though the Pharisee tithes everything, his "conduct and attitude turn out to be fundamentally wrong.,,276 The unresolved problem of how much generosity is enough can only be resolved by further reading.

273 "The whole story focuses on the rich man, or more precisely on his surviving brothers and on those who read Luke's text. It is they whom the word of God must liberate from their perverse and stupid self-assurance .... otherwise even resurrection leads only to hardness of heart." Schweizer, 262.

274 The use ofciq,ll]I1L in association with sins again as an act offorgiveness (17:3-4) also conforms to the reader's expectation and adds closure to the reading which emphasizes the soteriological aspects of the term in the earlier LXX quotation (4:18-19).

275 In spite of frequent claims to the contrary, such boasts were not common within first century judaism. See Marshall, Gospel ofLuke, 680 and Johnson, Gospel ofLuke, 272.

276 Fitzmyer, Gospel According to Luke, 1184. 161

B) Jesus and Two Rich Men (Lk 18:18-19:10) Up to this point in the reading process, the reader has been able to create consistency from the text's various perspectives by relating these various perspectives to the recurring themes which were introduced by John the Baptist. Although alien associations have often arisen to challenge the Baptist's themes of generosity toward the needy and freedom from greed, these themes have proven adequate to serve as a basis for the reader's emerging gestalt. One problem has, however, remained unresolved. The reader has been faced with the problem of quantity and scale: How much should the receptive reader of the third gospel give away? How much may one possess without being guilty of greed and covetousness? On what scale is the receptive reader to be generous? With the reader's increasing acceptance that the Baptist's themes of generosity and greedlessness provide a sufficient basis upon which to construct a consistent reading of issues of wealth and poverty in the third gospel, the primary impediment to achieving closure for this reading is this unresolved problem of the scale of generosity. Jesus' encounters with two very different "rich" men, therefore, provide important new textual perspectives for the reader. In the first encounter, Jesus is approached by a synagogue "ruler" (apxwv).277 Echoing the question of the lawyer earlier in the third gospel (10:25- 37), the ruler asks Jesus: "What must I do in order to inherit eternal life?" (18: 18). Jesus answers this question, as he answered the same question in the previous account, by pointing to the law (10:26-27). In this case, however, rather than answering the ruler's question with another question (What is written in the law? 10:26) as he had done with the lawyer, Jesus answers the question by volunteering a summary of the law. He quotes five of the ten commandments, omitting the first four commandments (which deal with one's duties to God) and the last

277 Although this "ruler" is not specifically identified as a ruler of the synagogue, this person was probably a synagogue ruler. See Acts 13: 15; Luke 23:13,35; and 24:20. 162 commandment (which prohibits covetousness).278 As soon as Jesus finishes speaking, the ruler, no doubt believing that his obedience to the law has been absolute,279 claims to have kept "all of these" from his youth up (v. 21)?80 Faced with such a bold assertion, Jesus quickly replies, "One you still lack. Sell everything you have and give to the poor" (v. 22). In this directive, the reader is offered a possible resolution for the problem of quantity and scale, which has remained unresolved up to this point in the reading process. That is, it may be inferred that the receptive reader ought to give away everything in order both to demonstrate freedom from greed and to fulfill the third gospel's call to generosity. After all, this saying, which is an explicit command from the third gospel's most reliable character, does direct the ruler to do exactly that, to give away everything! Indeed, some readers have understood this directive to be characteristic of the economic ethic which the receptive reader is to infer from the third gospel. Richard Cassidy, for example, has claimed that 'sell all that you have and distribute it to the poor,' is not a stray note that finds its way into Luke's description of Jesus only in this one instance. Rather, it is thoroughly consistent with Luke's general description of Jesus.281

21S On the order of the commandments in Luke as compared to the order in Matthew and Mark, see Evans, Saint Luke, 651.

279 Danker, Jesus and the New Age, 300, 305-06, classifies the ruler among "the righteous who need no repentance." This classification, although common, misses the force of the next verse (v. 22).

"'0 The questioner is characterized differently in the gospel of Matthew than in the third gospel and the gospel of Mark. In Matthew's gospel, the narrator describes the ruler as "young" (19:20, 22). Since the questioner is still young in Matthew's account, he does not claim to have kept all of the commandments from his youth as he does in the third gospel (18:21) and the gospel of Mark (10:20).

281 Cassidy, Jesus, Politics and Society: A Study of Luke's Gospel (New York: Crossroads, 1978), 27. 163 In spite of the eagerness of some persons like Cassidi82 to create a consistent reading using this directive's apparent advocacy of self­ impoverishment as the central ethical norm of the narrative, significant reasons exist to make the reader reluctant to overturn prematurely the emerging gestalt. The reasons for this reluctance are based not only upon the plausibility of the reading developed up to this point in the reading process, but also upon the difficulties associated with accepting this particular economic directive as a universally applicable ethical norm for receptive readers of the third gospel. Four reasons for this reluctance are particularly important. First, this directive is, in spite of Cassidy's contention, not characteristic of the third gospel up to this point in the narrative. No other sayings direct persons to "sell everything." Nor do any narratives record persons doing so. When people are directed to "sell" (12:33), they are not directed to sell everything. When people take actions which involve "everything" (leaving or renouncing it, 5: 11,28; 14:33), these actions do not result in literal divestment of all economic resources. Tllis ruler is the only person who is directed to sell everything and this directive is, therefore, uncharacteristic of the third gospel! Second, the ruler apparently does not follow this directive; rather he becomes sad (v. 23).283 Since no other character in the third gospel sells everything and gives the proceeds to the poor, the reader is reluctant to infer a normative ethic from this negative example. The reader could more easily accept the suggestion that the tIlird gospel advocates tile selling of all possessions for the

282 E.g., Evans, Saint Luke, 649, claims that "the disciples .. .in answering the call to discipleship, have already obeyed the command to sell all and give alms (12:33)." Likewise Johnson, Gospel of Luke, 277, argues that this directive "is basically the same as that given to the disciples in 12:33.

283 In the gospel of Matthew (19:22) and the gospel of Mark (10:22), the man leaves in sorrow, but in the third gospel he does not leave, but instead remains to have Jesus continue addressing him (18:24-25) and apparently to overhear the subsequent dialogue between Jesus and the disciples (18:26-30). 164 benefit of the poor84 if some character, any character, within the third gospel actually carried through with this activity. To infer an ethical norm from one unique and unheeded directive strains plausibility. Third, this man is called to "follow" (ciKOAov6EW) Jesus (v. 22), and the reader has observed that the third gospel makes particularly stringent demands upon those who are called to unique tasks. Two groups in particular, those who are called to follow Jesus (5:1-11, 27-29; cf. 9:57_61)285 and those who are sent out by Jesus (9: 1-6; 10: 1-12), are frequently found disassociating themselves from the encumbrances of normal home and family life. Although the stringent demands placed upon those whom Jesus sent out were shown to be quite temporary, the demands placed upon those who were called to follow Jesus are more enduring. As Jesus' earlier warnings to would-be disciples (9:57-61) and Peter's remarks in this context (18:28) make clear, disassociation from home and family life (but not necessarily possessionsi86 was the norm for those who followed Jesus. Even so, Jesus' command to sell everything seems harsh even for those who would follow him. None of the other followers were directed to sell all of their possessions. Fourth, the directive appears to fulfill a soteriological purpose as well as an ethical one. For the reader seeking a consistent reading of issues of wealth and poverty in the third gospel, the key issue is not merely that Jesus directed this rich

284 Becoming poor for the sake of the poor, of course, brings about the ironic (and ethically indefensible) result that poverty is increased.

2S1 Note the importance which the disciples themselves place upon "following" in 9:49 where they forbid an exorcist from casting out demons in Jesus' name because he does not "follow" Jesus. On the importance of following for Luke, see Fitzmyer, Gospel According to Luke,241-42.

286 Note that the list of things that the Lukan Jesus says a "man" may have left behind for the sake of the kingdom is limited to relationships ("household or wife or brothers or parents or children" 18:29). In the gospel of Matthew (19:29) and the gospel of Mark (10:29), the list includes the possession of "lands." In the third gospel, the disciples do not claim to have abandoned property. On understanding oLKla as domestic relationships ("household"), rather than a physical dwelling ("house"), see Marshall, Gospel ofLuke, 688. 165 man to sell everything, but also why Jesus gave this particular directive to this particular man. When the reader examines the interaction between Jesus and the ruler closely, the motivation for this uncharacteristic directive is found to be oriented more toward soteriological than parenetic aims. The directive in question is placed within Jesus' response to the ruler's claim that he has kept all of the commandments since his youth (v. 21). After the man claims to have kept all of the commandments since his youth, Jesus offers the retort: One you still lack. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me (v. 22).

Before asking why Jesus directed the man to sell everything, the reader must determine what exactly it was that the rich man lacked. That which the ruler lacks is, of course, obedience to the tenth commandment which prohibits coveting-and which Jesus conveniently omitted in his original summary of the law. The reader notes that Jesus communicates the rich man's failure in an indirect though forceful manner. After telling the ruler that he lacks one (commandment) Jesus challenges him to sell his goods and distribute the proceeds to the poor (v. 22). When faced with his own unwillingness to accept the prospect of impoverishment, the ruler becomes very sad (v. 23) because he is made to realize that his claim to have kept all of the commandments is in fact baseless. He does still lack obedience to one commandment. His unwillingness to release his covetous grip on possessions has revealed his failure to keep the tenth commandment. Although the claim that the ruler lacked obedience to one commandment, the tenth and unstated commandment, has found limited support among critical readers/87 the majority of interpreters (and translations) does not concur with this

287 E.g., Craig A. Evans, Luke, NIBC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991),273, explains that "[a]lthough it does not explicitly say so, the passage suggests that the wealthy ruler had failed to keep the tenth commandment, the commandment not to covet (Exod. 20:17; Deut. 5:21)" and Ellis, 218, asserts that "Jesus puts his finger on the one commandment, unmentioned before (20), 166 reading. Rather, the majority reading has assumed that the ruler's one missing "thing" was (were) the two acts of selling his possessions and following Jesus. This majority reading, of course, faces the irony that the ruler, who lacked only one thing, is told to do two things (i.e., to sell and to follow). The difficulty of this interpretation is well illustrated by C. E. Evans's defense of it. Assuming that the author of the third gospel has used the gospel of Mark as a source at this point, Evans explains that verse 22 is the climax, which Luke somewhat sharpens with One thing you still lack and all that you have for Mark's 'You lack one thing' and 'what you have.' But Jesus utters not one commandment but two, and it is not clear how they are related to each other, and to the original question and answer. 28S

The lack of clarity about which Evans complains dissipates when one recognizes two factors. First, the theme of commandments runs from verse 20 through verse 22: [20] You know the commandments .. . [21] ... All these commandments .. . [22] ... One commandment you stilllack.289

Second, the economic instructions (i.e., to sell and give) are not in themselves what the ruler lacks,290 but rather they serve to reveal which commandment the ruler has failed to observe, the tenth commandment against coveting. The ruler, who claimed to have kept all of the commandments, is

that the young man failed to keep. He was covetous." Also see Charles M. Swezey, "Luke 18: 18- 30," Int 37 (1983): 69.

288 Evans, Saint Luke, 651-52. Similarly, Fitzmyer, Gospel According to Luke, 1197, argues that Jesus tells the ruler that he lacks "one thing" and that Jesus then directs him to do "two things."

289 Grammatically speaking, the antecedent of the pronouns TuilTu ("these" v. 21) and ltv ("one" v. 22) is EVTOMs- ("commandments" v. 20).

290 In an interesting twist on the majority reading, B. Celada's "Distribuci6n de los bienes y seguimiento de Jesus segun Lucas 18:18-30," CB 26 (1969): 337-40, argues that the one thing which the ruler lacked was a willingness to distribute his goods among the poor as some wealthy persons did in Acts (2:44-45; 4:32-37). 167 told that he lacks one commandment, and as soon as Jesus confronts him with a call to unlimited generosity (selling all), the ruler knows which one commandment he lacks--even though Jesus never explicitly mentions the tenth commandment. (Only a history of misreading has focused attention upon the acts of selling, giving and following, ratl1er than upon the commandment against

291 covetousness. ) Sensing his own disobedience to God, the ruler becomes sorrowful and in response, Jesus looks at the rich man292 and utters a proverbial saying: How hard it is for those who have riches to enter the kingdom of God. It is easier for a can1el to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God (vv. 24_25)?93

Many readers have, of course, sought to blunt the force of this hyperbolic analogy, but in the final analysis, a camel simply cannot pass through the eye ofa needle?94 As Charles Swezey noted: No four-legged creature could thread the hole of an instrument so easily lost in a hay stack. The incongruity is compounded by the humorous

291 I suspect that this history of misreading is due, in large measure, to a Matthean reading of the third gospel. Where the third gospel reads "You still lack one [commandment]" (18:22), the gospel of Matthew reads "If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess ..." (19:21). Thus the economic instructions to the ruler in the gospel of Matthew do function as a de facto commandment rather than as a means of pointing to another (unspoken) commandment as they do in the third gospel. The Matthean interest at this point, to illustrate the greater demands of the "Christian" life, is less prominent in the third gospel which lays primary emphasis upon the ruler's unwillingness to fulfill even the commandments which he already acknowledges to be authoritative. For a comprehensive comparison of the synoptic parallels to Luke 18: 18-30, see Simon Legasse, "The Call of the Rich Man," Gospel Poverty: Essays in Biblical Theology (Chicago: Franciscan Herald Press, 1977), 53-80.

292 In the gospels of Matthew (19:23) and Mark (10:23), this saying is directed to the disciples because the man has already left in the previous verse (Matt 19:22, Mark 10:22). In the third gospel, however, Jesus speaks directly to the rich man (18:24-25).

293 Rene KrUger, "EI Precio Economico del Discipulado," RevistB 49 (1987): 193-207, suggests that 18:18-30 is a tightly structured chiasmus ("una bella estructura simetrica") which centers on the difficulty of entering the kingdom (v. 25).

294 The once popular notion that this saying refers to a small gate within the walls of Jerusalem both lacks any historical support and ignores the literary context of this saying. That notion "has now largely been abandoned" by critical readers. See Nolland, Luke, 890. 168 addition of a hump. The image does not point to a difficult maneuver but to an impossible one. 295

And precisely because the crowd of onlookers realized the impossibility of passing a camel through the eye of a needle, they desperately asked: "Then, who is able to be saved?" (v. 26). Jesus enigmatically answered: "What is impossible for human beings is possible for God" (v. 27). This enigmatic answer is, of course, a proclamation that only God can

2 save. % Thus this exchange between Jesus and a rich man, which began with a question about what one must do in order to inherit eternal life (v. 18), ultimately concludes by answering that question with a call for trust in God. Only God can do what is impossible for human beings, things like granting eternal life. Before calling for this trust, however, Jesus must undermine the rich man's false confidence in his own achievements. Thus Jesus directs the man to sell everything and give the proceeds to the poor. 297 This directive forces the man to confront his own sinfulness298 and the subsequent dialogue reveals the need for trusting in God to do the impossible.

295 Swezey, 68.

2% "Jesus spricht 'Bei den Menschen is unmoglich!' in diesem kurzen Spruch faBt er alles zusammen, was bis geschehen ist und gesprochen wurde: Der Mensch hat von sich aus keine Moglichkeit, ins Reich Gottes zu geJangen. Es steht nicht in seiner Macht, das Heil zu gewinnen ....Was sagt er anders aus als: Der Mensch mull erst den Boden unter den FUllen verlieren, er mull die gewohnten Fragen nach Leistung und Tun vergessen, er mull den Raum verlassen, in er Gott selbst gewinnen will. Gott selbst ist dann einzige Moglichkeit. Der JUnger mull sich entscheiden." Engelbert NeuhaUsler, "Allem Besitz entsagen," Anspruch und Antwart Galles, 184-85.

297 Even if one is unconvinced that the story demonstrates the ruler's violation of the tenth commandment, the story may still be read as a demonstration of the ruler's sin. For example, in his comments on 18:22, Talbert, Reading Luke, 172, argues that "[f]rom this the ruler learned something about himself he did not formerly know. He learned that he was an idolater .... He did not really keep the first and greatest commandment."

298 This concern to force an acknowledgement of one's sinfulness explains Jesus' initial refusal to accept the designation "good" (v. 19). On the christological implications of the use of "good" in this account, see Ulrich Luck, "Die Frage nach dem Guten," Studien zum Text und zur Ethik des Neuen Testaments (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1986),282-97. 169 Therefore, given the soteriological function of this directive (to demonstrate the ruler's sinfulness and need for divine assistance) and the uniqueness of the directive, the reader is unwilling to conclude that the instructions given to the ruler are indicative of the ethical norms which the receptive reader is to glean from the third gospel. Even though the ruler is directed to sell everything and to give the proceeds to the poor, the internal frame of reference renders it implausible to conclude that the third gospel advocates self­ impoverishment. The reader is, however, still confronted with the unresolved problem of quantity: How much is one to give away and how much is one to retain? After a brief interlude in which a prediction of Jesus' death is followed by the healing of a blind man (18:31-43), issues of wealth and poverty again become thematic as Jesus encounters yet another rich man (19:1-10). This encounter is, however, significantly different from Jesus' encounter with the ruler.299 In the earlier story of the rich ruler (18:18-30), Jesus' dialogue partner is a synagogue leader who stands at the center of Jewish life. In this story, Jesus' dialogue partner, Zacchaeus, is a toll colIecto~OO who stands outside of the mainstream of Jewish life. 301 \Vhereas the onlookers in the previous story are amazed when the ruler is shown to be unrighteous (18:23-25), the crowds assume

299 Johnson, Gospel of Luke, 287, insists that "obviously, the story of Zacchaeus (19: 1-9) is meant to contrast with that of the ruler in 18:18-23. Both men were powerful, both wealthy."

300 Although apXLTEAWTjS (19:2) occurs only here in extant literature (see BAGD, "apXl TEAWTjS"), toll collectors in general are portrayed quite positively in the third gospel. They responded favorably to John the Baptist (3: 12); one of the disciples was a former toll collector who introduced his fellow toll collectors to Jesus (5:27-30); they followed through on the baptism they received from John (7:29); they "drew near" (eyyl'w) to Jesus (15:1); and one served as a positive role model of humility in contrast to the pride of a Pharisee (18:9-14). On Luke's portrayal of toll collectors, see W. P. Loewe, "Towards an Interpretation ofLk 19:1-10," CBQ 36 (1974): 322.

301 As Fitzmyer, Gospel According to Luke, 1223, notes, "the implication is that Zacchaeus' wealth came from his activity as a toll-collector" and resulted in his unpopUlarity with his fellow Jews. 170 that Zacchaeus is a sinner (19:7).302 In the earlier story, Jesus calls the ruler to follow him (18:22), while in this story he asks Zacchaeus to serve as his host (19:5). Whereas the ruler's encounter with Jesus produces sadness (18:23), Zacchaeus's encounter with Jesus produces joy (19:6). For those interested in issues of wealth and poverty, however, the most important difference between the stories is the amount of their generosity to the poor. The ruler was commanded by Jesus to sell everything and to give the proceeds to the poor (18:22), while Zacchaeus is praised by Jesus when he voluntarily gives half of his possessions to the poor. The voluntary character of Zacchaeus's generosity toward the poor is no doubt significant, but it may also be significant that Zacchaeus's statement of generosity came in response, not to Jesus' command, but rather to the crowd's assumption of his supposed sinfulness. When the crowds complained that Jesus was accepting the hospitality of a sinner, Zacchaeus gave his quick reply: [80il TCt TJIl-L

Behold, Lord, half of my possessions [or incomeJ 303 I give to the poor, and if! defraud anything from anyone I repay fourfold (v. 8).

The majority of readers have regarded these words as an act of repentance on Zacchaeus's part, signifying his resolve to live honestly and generously in the future. They have thus taken the present tense verbs "give" (8t8WIl-L) and "repay"

302 Some readers have questioned whether the assumption of the crowds, whose judgments are seldom reliable in the third gospel, reflects the judgment of Jesus and the narrator. See Alan C. Mitchell, "Zacchaeus Revisited," Bib 71 (1990): 153-76, especially 161, and Richard C. White, "A Good Word for Zacchaeus?" Lexington Theological Quarterly 14 (1979): 89-96. This issue will be addressed in more detail later in this dissertation.

303 Although irrrapxoVTos normally refers to property or possessions, it can be used more generally to refer to one's means or income. See BAGD, "imapxw." Also see Fitzmyer, Gospel According to Luke, 1225; cf. Dennis Hamm, "Luke 19:8 Once Again," JBL 107 (1988): 431-37. 171 «l1roo[OWl1l) in the future sense of "I will give" and "{ will repay."304 Other readers have argued, however, that Zacchaeus used the present tense because he was describing his customary practice and not some new resolve on his part.305 The central issue at stake was clearly stated by Richard White: "Did Jesus forgive a penitent sinner, or did he vindicate a 'pure' publican's good name against a false, stereotyped charge?,,306 Substantial arguments can be mounted from either side. In support of the reading which understands Zacchaeus's words as a defense of his piety against the false accusations reflected in the murmurs of the (unreliable) crowds, one may point not only to the present tense of the verbs, but also to the fact that the name Zacchaeus itself, which means "pure," may have been chosen for its symbolic value. 307 In addition to this, readers have noted that Zacchaeus offers no explicit plea for mercy or forgiveness nor does he even

304 E.g., Hamm, "Luke 19:8 Once Again," 431-37; Dennis Hamm, "Zacchaeus Revisited Once More," Bib 72 (1991): 249-52; Robert C. Tannehill, "The Story of Zacchaeus as Rhetoric," Semeia 64 (1993): 201-11; Paul Kariamadam, The Zacchaeus Story (Kerala, India: Pontifical Institute of Theology and Philosophy, 1985), 33-37; Marshall, Gospel of Luke, 697; Nolland, Luke, 906-07; Plummer, 435; Schmithals, Lukas, 185; F. Wellford Hobbie, "Luke 19: 1-10," Int 31 (1977): 285-90; Ellis, 220-21; Evans, Saint Luke, 661; Bock, Luke, 1518-21; Schmid, 411-12; Farrar, St. Luke, 293; Danker, Jesus and the New Age, 192; Schweizer, 290-91; Kremer, 182; and Petzke, 167-68. On the possibility that the third gospel's use of the present tense in this saying is influenced by an underlying Aramaic tendency to use the present tense with a future force in direct speech, see Nigel M. Watson, "Was Zacchaeus RealJy Reforming?" ExpTim (1965-66): 282-85.

305 E.g., Mitchell, "Zacchaeus Revisited," 173-76; White, "A Good Word for Zacchaeus?" 89-96; D. A. S. Ravens, "Zacchaeus," JSNT 41 (1991): 19-32; Richard C. White, "Vindication for Zacchaeus?" ExpTim 91 (1979): 21; Johnson, Gospel ofLuke, 286; and Fitzmyer, Gospel According to Luke, 1225.

306 "Vindication for Zacchaeus?" 21.

307 Ravens, "Zacchaeus," 19-32, argues that names tend to have symbolic value in the third gospel. For example, the Pharisee Simon, who is told to listen (7:40), bears a name meaning "listen." The poor man Lazarus, who came to be comforted at Abraham's bosom (16:19-31), bears a name which means "God helps." Also see White, "Good Word," 93. Cf. Nolland, Luke, 904 and Bock, Luke, 1516. 172 acknowledge any sinfulness.308 On the other hand, Zacchaeus's reference to extorting people (aVTEw, v. 8) does seem to imply willful misconduct on his parf09 and Jesus' concluding remarks (vv. 9-10) that salvation has come to Zacchaeus's house and that Jesus came "to seek and to save the lost" may presume repentance on Zacchaeus' s part.3IO For the reader seeking to develop a consistent reading of issues of wealth and poverty in the third gospel and Acts, it is not particularly important to determine whether Zacchaeus's words describe his customary actions (and thus seek to vindicate him against false charges) or describe his new resolve (and thus demonstrate the sincerity of his repentance).311 Whether Zacchaeus's generous fourfold restitution312 and benevolence to the poor had been long standing commitments or were new commitments made in light of this present encounter with Jesus, they were commitments that drew praise from Jesus. It was sufficient that Zacchaeus gave half of his considerable wealth to the pOOr!313 The

30g It may also be significant that Zacchaeus stands rather than bowing or kneeling when speaking to Jesus. See White, "Good Word," 93.

309 "Surely, 'inadvertent extortion' is an oxymoron." Hamm, "Zacchaeus Revisited," 249. Cf. Johnson, Gospel ofLuke, 286, who notes that the reference occurs in a conditional clause and "does not imply that he did commit extortion; the sense is 'if! discover I have ... '"

310 Although White, "Good Word," 94, is correct to note the possibility that "lost" could mean "vilified and excommunicated," that is not the meaning of the term when it is applied to a lost son in the parable of the waiting father (15:32). On the importance of Jesus' final remarks, see Tannehill, "Story of Zacchaeus," 20 I.

311 Although I frod the vindication reading of this account most plausible, Talbert, Reading Luke, 176-77, may be correct to suggest that the story probably told of Zacchaeus's vindication in one or more of its earlier oral and pre-Lukan forms, but that it is now a story of the conversion of Zacchaeus.

312 The normal amount of restitution required by the OT was the amount taken with an additional 20 percent. In the case of the theft of an animal, however, some texts required a fourfold return (e.g., 2 Sam 12:6; Exod 22:1; cf. Jos. Ant 16:3). The Mishnah tended to limit restitution to a twofold return. See Marshall, Gospel ofLuke, 698 and Johnson, Gospel of Luke, 286.

313 The suggestion that the combination of making such generous restitution and of giving away half of his wealth impoverished Zacchaeus is extremely implausible. If the story was designed to relate the self-impoverishment of the "rich" Zacchaeus, it could have simply related 173 salvation that the ruler desired, but apparently never obtained, came to Zacchaeus (v. 9) even though he gave away only half of his wealth (v. 8). The reader is left with a number of unanswered questions. Why did Jesus command the ruler to give away everything and then immediately praise Zacchaeus as a son of Abraham When he gave away only half of his wealth? How much did Zacchaeus continue to possess after proceeding with his generous restitution and benevolence to the poor? Why did Zacchaeus give away half of his wealth? Why did he not give away two thirds or one fourth? Is there a threshold of wealth beyond which those who heed Jesus' message may not go? The reader can answer these and other questions related to the unresolved problem of quantity and scale only by continued reading and reflection. Even though many questions remain unanswered, reading about Jesus' encounters with the ruler and Zacchaeus has reinforced the reader's emerging gestalt. Reading about the encounter with the ruler reaffirmed the importance of the third gospel's condemnation of greed and covetousness; reading about the encounter with Zacchaeus reaffirmed the importance both of the third gospel's call for generosity and of its unwillingness to advocate an ethic of self­ impoverishment.

C) Confrontations in Jerusalem (Luke 19:11-24:53) Up to this point in the reading process, the reader has developed a consistent reading of issues of wealth and poverty by using the sermon of John the Baptist as a starting point for reflection. In that sermon, John demanded that persons practice personal generosity toward those in need and that they remain free from greed. This reading, although frequently challenged by alien associations and temporary negations, has gained increasing closure throughout that Zacchaeus gave away everything. But on this suggestion, see John O'Hanlon, "The Story of Zacchaeus and the Lukan Ethic," JSNT 12 (1981): 2-26; L. Sabourin, "'Evangelize the Poor' (Lk 4:18)," RSB 1 (1981): 104; and Tannehill, "Story of Zacchaeus," 203. Cf. Johnson, Gospel of Luke, 286, who explains that Zacchaeus "has clearly not impoverished himself (half a bundle can still be a bundle)." 174 the reading process. In these closing chapters of the third gospel, issues of wealth and poverty are only briefly glimpsed, and these glimpses provided no new perspectives to overturn the reading developed up to this point in the reading process. In fact, Jesus' final private discussion with the disciples provides closure for the alien associations which linger from the stem economic instructions which Jesus gave to those he sent out on missionary journeys. References to money briefly appear in the narrative background of two parables, but neither parable's primary function is to offer insights into issues of wealth and poverty. The first parable, the parable of the pounds (19:11-27), uses the scene of an absent master who returns to judge his servants' management of his resources during his absence in order to urge the disciples to faithfulness in light of Jesus' impending departure and to warn Jesus' opponents about the consequences of refusal to acknowledge his kingship.314 The second parable, the parable of the vineyard (20:9-19), uses the scene of another absent landlord. In this parable, however, the landlord sends his only son to investigate his servants' stewardship, and the servants murder the son in an act of violence, which illustrates the course of the relationship between Jesus and the Jewish leadership in Jerusalem. The priests and scribes understand that the parable is directed toward their stewardship of God's temple and their plans for Jesus' death and they therefore react negatively.31S Although the background imagery of each parable includes themes of economic stewardship, the reader regards neither parable as directly addressing issues of wealth and poverty. Just as Jesus has used common scenes from the financial world of his day for polemical purposes against the Jewish leadership, his opponents use a

314 See most importantly, Luke Timothy Johnson, "The Lukan Kingship Parable eLk 19:11-27)," NovT2 (1982): 139-59.

31S As Green, Gospel ofLlIke, 703, explains, "[b]efore, Jesus had refused to reveal the nature and source of his authority, but now he does so in a parabolic way. What is more, to the Jerusalem leaders Jesus' message is all too clear, with the result that they perceive in his message the dislodging of their own base of authority." 175 common economic issue, though the highly symbolic economic issue of paying tribute to Rome/16 against him. Undercover representatives of the scribes and priests ask Jesus, "Is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar or not?" (20:22). They question him about this seemingly economic issue in the hope that his answer will place him under the hostility of the Roman authorities (20:20-26). Jesus would not be so easily tricked. After having the questioners examine a coin with Caesar's image on it, he replied that persons should "render to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's" (v. 25). Although there is room for debate about exactly what one is to render to God,317 Charles Talbert is correct to note that "[i]t is very difficult not to see vss. 24-25 as affirming the payment of taxes. Give Caesar his money. Those who use Caesar's money will have to pay Caesar's taxes.,,318 Although the implications of this admonition are vast for those seeking a consistent reading of issues of politics and of church/state relations, the implications for those seeking a consistent reading of issues of wealth and poverty are limited. Basically, the saying allows one to affirm only that "[t]he Lukan Jesus does not forbid the use of material possessions to pay taxes to a secular ruler."319 This affirmation is, of course, consistent with the reader's expectations since the third gospel has not

316 Bock, Luke, 1607, correctly observes that "[t]ribute was an emotional issue for Jews since it pictured in concrete economic terms Israel's subjection to Rome. Needless to say, it was unpopular."

317 The exact meaning of "to God what is God's" is widely debated and bears strongly on issues of church and state relations. See, for example, David T. Owen-Ball, "Rabbinic Rhetoric and the Tribute Passage (Mt. 22:15-22; Mk. 12:13-17; Lk. 20:20-26)," NovT35 (1993): 2-14; J. Duncan M. Derrett, "Luke's Perspective on Tribute to Caesar," Political Issues in Luke-Acts, ed., Richard J. Cassidy and Philip Scharper (Maryknoll: Orbis, 1983), 38-48; and Charles H. Giblin, '''The Things of God,' in the Question Concerning Tribute to Caesar (Lk 20:25; Mk 12:17; Mt 22:21)," CBQ 33 (1971): 510-27.

318 Talbert, Reading Luke, 192.

319 Fitzmyer, Gospel According to Luke, 1297. In spite of Jesus' apparent willingness to pay tribute to Caesar, at his trial Jesus' opponents still charged that he forbid the paying of tribute (23:2). 176 demonstrated any disdain for material resources up to this point in the narrative. The attempt of Jesus' opponents to set him at odds with the Roman authorities and his subsequent acceptance of the Roman demand for tribute, therefore, provide little new insight into issues of wealth and poverty in the third gospel. Rather this exchange serves primarily to illustrate the character of the confrontation occurring between Jesus and the Jerusalem leadership; the leadership seeks to bring about Jesus' demise without arousing the antagonism of the people, but they are outwitted by Jesus' circumspect responses to their overtures. Jesus is not always circumspect, however. His antagonism toward the temple leadership is real and his attacks upon the temple establishment can be quite direct. On two occasions, issues of wealth and poverty play an important role in his denouncements of the temple leadership. After weeping over the city of Jerusalem and its impending demise (19:41-44), Jesus entered the temple and began to throw out the people who sold things within the temple (19:45). As he did so, he accused the merchants of turning God's house of prayer into a den of thieves (19:46).320 Although the third gospel does not explain how these merchants were robbing people,321 the reader is left with the impression that they were preying upon the goodwill of the pious in order to fulfill their own desire for material gain.322 Thus Jesus' actions, which are a forceful rejection of

320 References to thieves (AU

321 "The implication is that the legitimate sale of sacrificial victims was accompanied by money-grabbing and commercial rivalry." Marshall, Gospel a/Luke, 721.

322 "The expUlsion is limited to those who sold, without any hint of what it was that they were there to sell, leaving the impression, typical of Luke, that it was avarice which was being condemned." Evans, Saint Luke, 688, emphasis Evan's. 177 the merchants' greed and avarice, are consistent with the reader's expectations. The reader has come to expect that the third gospel will condemn greed. A similar condemnation of this kind of greed, a greed which abuses the good will of the pious for its own material gain, is repeated in the account of a poor widow's offering (21:1-4). While in the temple, Jesus observed a number of rich persons and one poor widow placing offerings in the treasury. After seeing the widow place two mites323 in the offering, Jesus said: Truly I say to you that this poor widow has put in more than all of them. For they all put in offerings out of their abundance, but out of her poverty she has put in all the livelihood which she has (21 :3-4).

Although many readers have interpreted Jesus' words as praise for the widow's act,324 Addison G. Wright has noted that these words are, in fact, words of lament.325 After drawing attention to the fact that a polemic against those who devour widows' houses immediately precedes this story, Wright explains that Jesus condemns those scribes who devour the houses of widows [20:47], and then follows immediately with the story of a widow whose house has beyond doubt just been devoured. What other words would be more appropriate to describe it? 'She put in everything that she had, her whole living.' ... If, indeed, Jesus is opposed to the devouring of widow's houses, how could he possibly be pleased with what he sees here?326

Thus when read with sensitivity to the third gospel's internal frame of reference, the story of the widow's mites is definitely not a noble example to be

323 The coins mentioned here (AE1Tp6v, 21 :2; cf. 12:59) were the smallest in circulation. They were minted by the Jewish authorities who, even under the Romans, retained the right to mint coins with small value. See G. L. Archer, "Possessions," NIDNIT (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976),2: 849-50.

324 E.g., Nolland, Luke, 979; Evans, Saint Luke, 728-29; Talbert, Reading Luke, 198; Green, Gospel ofLuke, 728-29; Johnson, Gospel ofLuke, 315-16; and Bock, Luke, 1646.

J2S "The Widow's Mites," CBQ 44 (1982): 256-65.

J26 Wright, 261-62. Similarly, Fitzmyer, Gospel According to Luke, 1321, concludes: "In short, Jesus' comment contains words of lament, not of praise." Also see Barbara E. Reid, Choosing the Better Part? (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1996), 195-97. 178 praised and imitated,327 rather it is a condemnation of the greed and destructiveness centered in the temple. Those who take the last coins from a poor widow in order to adorn a temple with gems and ornamentation (A(eOLS KaAoLS Kat avaeiu.Lao"LV KEKOJudas Iscariot is given money in "the slimiest transaction history will ever record,'mo the betrayal of Jesus (22:5). Judas shares the greed of the temple leaders.331 During these chapters of intense confrontation between Jesus and the Jerusalem leaders, issues of wealth and poverty have arisen primarily as Jesus has sought to discredit the character and motives of his opponents. The third gospel has developed a textual strategy of portraying Jesus' opponents as driven by lust for gain regardless of the consequences to others. The last time that issues of wealth and poverty become thematic in the third gospel, the situation is different.

J27 Wright, 263, appropriately insists "there is no praise of the widow in the passage and no invitation to imitate her, precisely because she ought not to be imitated."

328 J. Duncan M. Derrett, '''Eating up the Houses of Widows:' Jesus' Comment on Lawyers," NovT 14 (1972): 1-19, has suggested that the devouring of widow's houses could refer to the practice of taking fmancial control over the estates of the widows' late husbands and then abusing one's legal authority by plundering the estate. Although such arrangements may have been possible, such extratextual speculation is unnecessary in this context.

329 "In a condition of need the widow gave away even the little which she had to support life. If the leaders of the Jewish religion treated such pious people in the way criticized by Jesus in 20:47, it followed that the system was ripe for judgment. It is no accident that the prophecy of the destruction of the temple follows: the priests were no better than the scribes in their attitude to wealth (20:45ff)." Marshall, Gospel ofLuke, 752.

JJO Danker, Jesus and the New Age, 219.

JJI Matthew's gospel sets the price of Jesus' betrayal at 30 pieces of silver (26: 15). Although the third gospel does not specifY the amount of money which changed hands, Ellis, 248, is no doubt correct to suggest that the exchange of money is recorded in order to reveal the covetousness which motivated Judas to betray Jesus. 179 Jesus is alone with his disciples shortly before his arrest, giving them final instructions. Just before entering into prayer, Jesus has the disciples reflect back upon their missionary journey (22:35; cf. 9:1-6; 10:1-12). He asks them if they lacked anything while on those journeys. They say that they lacked nothing (v. 35). Jesus then tells them that the situation has now changed. Whereas before they took nothing with them on their journeys, now they are to take their purse and their bag. They are even to buy a sword332-{)r at least two of them will need swords (v. 36).333 For the reader seeking to create a consistent reading of issues of wealth and poverty, these final words, though brief, provide final closure to some ideas which the reader has been developing throughout the reading process. First, the reader's earlier conclusion about the uniqueness of the missionary journeys is confirmed. The reader had tentatively concluded that the harsh economic prohibitions given by Jesus for those who were sent on missionary journeys (9:1-6; 10:1-12) were unusually stringent even when addressed to those who followed Jesus. The manner in which Jesus asks his rhetorical question, "When I sent you out without a purse, or bag, or shoes, did you lack anything?" (v. 35), sets these times of provisionless journeys apart from their more characteristic travels with Jesus. The disciples sometimes traveled without any provisions, but these times could be isolated and discussed as unique events within their lives of discipleship. Second, the disciples' answer, their insistence that they lacked "nothing" (v. 35) even when they were sent out with no provisions, gives [mal closure to the reader's tentative conclusion that the third gospel does not portray

JJ2 On the unlikely suggestion that the reference to the sword is "metaphorical and refers to an attitude of the mind rather than to the outward equipment," see Marshall, Gospel of Luke, 825. On the possibility that the reference to the sword was added by Christians who faced later persecutions, see R. Heilegenthal, "Wehrlosigkeit oder Selbstschutz?" NTS 41 (1995): 39-58.

333 These two swords are present at Jesus' arrest (22:47-53). One of them is used to cut off the ear of one of the high priest's servants (22:50). 180 privation and destitution as desirable states. Although the reader is given no additional insight into Jesus' reason for sending out his disciples without provisions, the disciples' lack of need demonstrates that Jesus was not motivated by any desire to make the disciples experience physical privation. When Jesus prohibited the disciples from carrying along any provisions, he assumed that they would attain provisions along the way and not suffer physical privation.334 Third, Jesus' contrast between the prohibitions placed upon those whom Jesus earlier sent out and the instructions given to those who are presently with him gives final closure to the reader's earlier conclusion that the receptive reader of the third gospel would not adopt the stringent economic demands of the missionary journeys as normative of the third gospel. Regardless of the motivation for the stringent economic demands which were placed upon the missionaries, Jesus consciously isolates those restrictions to a time in the past and negates their normative value for the future, saying "but now" (clAAcl vuv, v. 36).335

Concluding Reflections Having finished reading the whole of the third gospel, the reader is now in a position to answer the primary question which was being addressed to the third gospel. How is the reader's illlderstanding of and behavior related to issues of wealth and poverty affected by having read the third gospel? The reader concludes that the ethical norms introduced by John the Baptist provide the basic themes aroillld which a consistent reading of the third gospel may be

334 Johnson, Gospel of Luke, 346, suggests that the prohibitions imposed upon the disciples during their past missionary journeys assumed a "context of hospitality" within which their needs would be fulfilled. That context, Johnson suggests, could no longer be assumed after Jesus' arrest

335 On the "historizing" of the missionary requirements, see Takaaki Haraguchi, "Das Unterhaltsrecht des frUchristlichen Verkiindigers," ZNW 84 (1993): 186-95; Theissen, "Itinerant Radicalism," 84-93; and Tuckett, Luke, 102. 181 developed. The Baptist exhorted his listeners to practice generosity and to spurn greed. These two themes encompass the economic norms which the reader gleans from the third gospeL The reader has also discerned how these two ideals are interrelated. Only the person who is truly free from the selfish desires of greed is able to be genuinely and unreservedly generous toward those in need. At various points in the reading process, two more stringent sets of economic practices or instructions challenged this reading. First, the stringent economic restrictions placed upon those whom Jesus sent out on missionary journeys in chapters nine and ten seemed temporarily to advocate a life of poverty. These restrictions were, however, found to be limited to persons who were involved in those specific missions at that specific time. Second, the disciples' abandonment of their vocations and home lives also seemed to advocate an ethic less favorable to the continued possession of economic resources. Although no clear rejection of this vocational and domestic abandonment has been discovered within the third gospel, the reader has noted that this ethic was practiced only by selected individuals within the third gospel and was not incumbent upon all persons who responded positively to Jesus' message. Although the reader has accepted the normative character of the ideals of generosity and greedlessness and the reader has even established an important relationship between these two ideals, the reader has been troubled by the lingering question of quantity. How many possessions may one own without succumbing to greed? How much should one give away? The reader has discerned no clear answer to these questions within the third gospeL At this point, the reader is forced to formulate what the text leaves unformulated. Upon reflection, the reader concludes that the issue of quantity is left unresolved because the reader who has been freed from greed, and thus been enabled to be generous, will not be concerned with quantifying possessions which he may retain. The receptive reader will be less concerned with the idea of retaining possessions than with eliminating the needs which surround him. To ask 182 the question of quantity is to perpetuate a focus upon one's own desires and thus potentially opens one to the influences of greed. Thus the reader's answer to the central question addressed to the third gospel is: The reader understands that the central issues are one's attitudes toward possessions and toward the needs of others. On the one hand, the third gospel is critical of any attitude which would attach a sense of self sufficiency to the possession of economic resources (e.g., the attitude of the rich fool) or which would hope to find security from anxiety in the acquisition of economic resources (e.g., as the disciples were warned to avoid). On the other hand, the third gospel is also critical of any attitude of attachment to or desire for possessions which would drive one to ignore the needs of one's fellow human being (e.g., the rich man's treatment of Lazarus) or to abuse and violate one's fellow human being for the sake of gain (e.g., the scribes' treatment of the poor widow). In light of this understanding of the criticisms which this reading of the third gospel has discovered directed to these attitudes, the receptive reader is challenged to practice a generosity limited only by the presence or absence of persons in need. The next chapter of this dissertation will determine how these conclusions are influenced by reading the Acts of the Apostles. CHAPTER IV

READING THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

Introduction This chapter will continue to draw upon the categories provided by Iser's theory of the reading process in order to illustrate how the reading of issues of wealth and poverty which was developed in the previous chapter is affected by reading the book of Acts. The specific question being asked in this chapter is: How is the understanding of and concern for issues of wealth and poverty which the reader gained from reading the third gospel affected by reading the Acts of the Apostles? This reading will focus on those passages which, in this reader's view, most significantly inform the reader's answer to the question under consideration.

Reconnecting to Previous Frames of Reference (Acts 1: 1-26) The early chapters of the third gospel provided the reader with the initial frames of reference required for understanding the narrative. Rather than establishing entirely new frames of reference, the opening chapter of the book of Acts! establishes connections back to the frames of reference developed within the

I The text of Acts presents textual critics with their greatest challenge within the New Testament. The longer Western text is usually regarded as a later edition of the book. See Peter Head, "Acts and the Problem of its Texts," The Book of Acts in Its Ancient Literary Setting, ed. Bruce W. Winter and Andrew D. Clarke, The Book of Acts in Its First Century Setting (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993),415-44; Philippe H. Menoud, "The Western Text and the Theology of Acts," Jesus Christ and the Faith, tr. Eunice M. Paul (Pittsburgh: Pickwick Press, 1978),61-83; Barbara Aland, "Enstehung, Charakter und Herkunft des sog. westlichen Textes untersucht in die Apostelgeschichte," ETL 62 (1986): 5-65; Colin J. Herner, The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History, ed. Conrad H. Gempf, WUNT 49 (Tlibingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1989), 53-57; 184 third gospel. The reader finds the book of Acts connected to the third gospel in five ways within the first chapter. First, both the narrator and the reader stand in the same position relative to the events narrated in Acts as they stood relative to the events narrated in the third gospel. The reader immediately establishes that this second book has the same implied author as the previous book because the implied author of Acts opens the book with a reference back to his previous book, the third gospel (Tov IlEV lTPWTOV AOYOV ElTOLT)crallT)v, 1:1).2 Acts then addresses Theophilus, the same reader addressed in the third gospel (Luke 1:3; Acts 1:1). Having established the connection which exists between himself and the one to whom the book is addressed, the implied author begins to locate these two in relation to the events narrated in Acts. In conformity with the pattern established in the third

Ernst Haenchen and Peter Weigandt, "The Original Text of Acts?" NTS 14 (1968): 469-81; Eldon Jay Epp, Theological Tendency ofCodex Bezae Cantabrigiensis in Acts, SNTSMS 3 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1966); Howard Clark Kee, To Every Nation under Heaven, New Testament in Context (Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 1997),27-28; and A. F. 1. Klijn, "In Search of the Original Text of Acts," Studies in Luke-Acts, ed. Leander Keck and J. Louis Martyn (1966; reprint ed., Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980), 103-10. Cf. W. A. Strange, The Problem of the Text ofActs, SNTSMS 71 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992). For a summary of the manuscript evidence, see C. K. Barrett, The Acts of the Apostles, ICC (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1994-98), 1-29; Hans Conzelmann, The Acts of the Apostles, ed. Eldon Jay Epp and Christopher R. Matthews, tr. James Limburg, A. Thomas Krabel and Donald Juel, Hermeneia (philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), xxxiii-xxxv; F. F. Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles, 3,d ed. (Grand RapidS: Eerdmans, 1990), 69-80; and Gerhard Schneider, Die Apostelgeschichte, HTKNT (Freiburg: Herder, 1980-82), 1: 154-69. This reading will follow the text presented in The Greek New Testament, ed. Kurt Aland, Matthew Black, Carlo M. Martini, Bruce M. Metzger, and Allen Wikgren, 3nl corrected ed. (Stuttgart: United Bible Societies, 1983).

2 The unity of the third gospel and Acts (Luke-Acts) is a common assumption among critical readers. Many readers regard the third gospel and Acts as a single work (e.g., Johannes Munck, The Acts of the Apostles, AB [New York: Doubleday, 1967], xv). Other readers regard Acts as a separate continuation of the third gospel (e.g., Justo 1. Gonzalez, Hechos [Miami: Editorial Caribe, 1992], 37). For a complete discussion of historical and literary relationships between the third gospel and Acts, see The Unity of Luke-Acts, ed. J. Verheyden (Leuven: University Press, 1999). Although some critical readers have recently caIled for a more careful examination of the exact character of the unity of the third gospel and Acts (e.g., Mikeal C. Parsons and Richard 1. Pervo, Rethinking the Unity of Luke and Acts [philadelphia: Fortress, 1993]), the opening verses of Acts clearly presume that the third gospel and its contents ("all that Jesus began to do and to teach" 1: I) are known to the reader. A sequential reading, like this one, which reads Acts in light of the third gospel, is clearly justified. 185 gospel, the narrator quickly distances himself from the events within the narrative by separating himself from the apostles whom Jesus had chosen and to whom Jesus had appeared (Acts 1:2_3).3 The narrator makes no claim to have been among those (olS, v. 3) who have seen the risen Lord and have been shown "by many convincing proofs" (v. 3, NASB) that he is alive. Just as the narrator stood apart from the historl narrated in the tllird gospel, he also stands removed from the history begun in the book of Acts. Second, the reader finds a focus upon the same main characters who appeared in the third gospel. The first verse of Acts recalls how the previous book described all that "Jesus began to do and to teach." Then, without any

3 "Acts, like Luke, begins with a prologue in which the author comments on the act of writing from a point of view external to the narrative." Robert C. Tannehill, The Narrative Unity ofLuke-Acts, vol. 2: The Acts ofthe Apostles (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986-90), 9.

4 Most critical readers have regarded the genre of Acts to be history. E.g., David E. Aune, The New Testament in Its Literary Environment, Library of Early Christianity 8 (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1987),77-140; Darryl W. Palmer, "The Literary Background of Acts 1:1-14," NT'S 33 (1987): 427-38; Brian S. Rosner, "Acts and Biblical History," The Book ofActs in Its Ancient Literary Setting, 65-82; F. Gerald Downing, "Theophilus' First Reading of Luke­ Acts," Luke's Literary Achievement, JSNTSup 1\6, ed. C. M. Tuckett (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995), 91-109, especially 99-100; C. K. Barrett, "How History Should Be Written," History, Literature. and Society in the Book ofActs, ed. Ben Witherington (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996),33-57; Ben Witherington, "Finding Its Niche: The Historical and Rhetorical Species of Acts," SBLSP (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996), 1-7; The Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: Eerdrnans, 1998), 2-39; David L. Balch, "The Genre of Luke-Acts," Southwestern Journal of Theology 33 (1990): 5-19; "Acts as Hellenistic Historiography," SBLSP, ed. Kent Harold Richards (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985), 429-32; Daryl Schmidt, "The Historiography of Acts," SBLSP (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985),417-27; Alanna Nobbs, "Acts and Subsequent Ecclesiastical Histories," The Book ofActs in Its Ancient Literary Setting, 153-62; Bruce, Acts, 27-34; Ernst Haenchen, Acts of the Apostles, tr. R. MeL. Wilson (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971),98-103; and James D. G. Dunn, Acts ofthe Apostles, Narrative Commentaries (Valley Forge: Trinity Press International, 1996), xv-xix. A minority of critical readers have suggested that Acts is written in the genre of biography (e.g., Charles H. Talbert, "The Acts of the Apostles: Monograph or 'bios?'" History. Literature, and Society in the Book ofActs, 58-72; Literary Patterns, Theological Themes. and the Genre of Acts [Missoula: Scholars Press, 1974]; Darryl W. Palmer, "Acts and the Ancient Historical Biography," The Book of Acts in Its Ancient Literary Setting, 1-30; and L. C. A. Alexander, "Acts and Ancient Intellectual Biography," The Book of Acts in Its Ancient Literary Setting," 31-64), or the novel (e.g., Richard 1. Pervo, Profit with Delight [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987]; Richard S. Ascough, "Narrative Technique and Generic Designation," CBQ 58 [1996]: 69- 81; and Susan Marie Praeder, "Luke-Acts and the Ancient Novel," SBLSP, ed. Kent Harold Richards [Chico: Scholars Press, 1981], 269-82). 186 clear boundaries, the prefatory remarks blend into a conversation between Jesus and the apostless in which Jesus explains that the apostles are to be his witnesses. Although Jesus' ascension soon removes him as an imminent figure within the narrative (1 :9-11), he remains a transcendent figure who is the focus of the narrative by means of the apostles' witness about hirn. 6 These apostolic witnesses provide continuity between the third gospel and Acts not only because the apostles were chosen and commissioned by Jesus,' but also because the apostles have the first hand knowledge of Jesus' words and deeds which the narrator lacks.8 The importance attached to the apostolic witness within Acts, however, immediately leads to a problem: Judas's betrayal of Jesus and his subsequent death (1:16-20). The death of the greedy Judas (he bought a field with his "wages of wickedness" [v. 18]),9 left the Christian community with the need for a replacement apostle. Two criteria are established for the replacement apostle: (1) He must have been with Jesus and the apostles continually from the

5 As Tannehill, Unity, 2: 9, notes, by the fourth and fifth verses of the first chapter, "we are no longer attending to an author's COmments on writing; we are attending to Jesus, a character internal to the narrative. The transition from the external world to the world of the narrative has taken place without apparent break."

6 The function of Jesus' character in Acts is explained well by Tannehill, Unity, 2: 24: "Jesus, the central character of the story, departs at the ascension and from that point will appear only briefly in visions. Although one might argue that he is still, in a sense, the central character, because he is constantly mentioned and is the center of conflict, the fact that he is now beyond the range of sight and sound causes major changes in the narrative."

7 Witherington, Acts o/the Apostles, 107.

8 Philippe Menoud, "Jesus and His Witnesses," Jesus Christ and the Faith, 149, explains that the apostolic "witnesses are necessary in order to proclaim to men that they have been saved not by a doctrine which is timeless but by the intervention of God in history, by events which happened once and for all, at a particular time and in a particular place; that is, men are needed who were present when the events took place and whose preaching is based on the affirmation, 'We have seen.''' On the importance of the apostolic witness within Acts, also see Barrett, Acts 0/ the Apostles, 63.

9 The greed of Judas was a common motif within early Christian literature. See Max Wilcox, "The Judas-Tradition in Acts I.\5-26," NTS 19 (\973): 438-52. Also see Tannehill, Unity, 2: 22. Luke Timothy Johnson's Acts o/the Apostles, SP (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1992), 40, notes: "The story is not 'about' the use of possessions, but Luke uses the evocative power of possessions-language to tell the story of Judas' defection." 187 beginning of Jesus' ministry at the baptism of John and (2) he must be a witness to the resurrection (vv. 21-22). As James Dunn explains: The emphasis on continuity could hardly be clearer. .. Clearly implied is the central and crucial role of the apostles in safeguarding that continuity and providing the authoritative continuity with 'all that Jesus began to do and to teach.'!O

Thus, not only the emphasis upon the third gospel's key characters of Jesus and the apostles,!] but also the criteria developed to determine who would tie up the loose end created by Judas's treachery, demonstrate the strong connection between the third gospel and Acts. Third, the narrative of Acts opens in a setting familiar to the reader of the third gospel. After hearing Jesus' discourse on the Mount of Olives (1:12) where they had spent their closing nights with Jesus in the third gospel (21 :37; 22:39),]2 the apostles return to Jerusalem (Acts 1: 12) where Jesus has commanded them to wait for the Father's promise (Acts 1:4). While waiting in Jerusalem together, they stay in an upper room (I: 13) reminiscent of the one where they ate their last meal with Jesus (Luke 22: 12).13 Fourth, the opening verses of Acts echo sayings from the third gospel which give the reader a sense that Acts both is rooted in and develops from the third gospel. Acts draws upon two different sayings to provide the reader

10 Dunn, Acts ofthe Apostles, 20.

II The less prominent, though important, characters of John the Baptist (vv. 5, 22) and Jesus' mother, Mary (v. 14), are also carried over from the third gospel to this first chapter of Acts.

12 On the identification of the Mount of Olives and Olivet, see Barrett, Acts of the Apostles, 87-88.

Il Quentin Quesnell's "The Women at Luke's Supper," Political Issues in Luke-Acts, ed. Richard J. Cassidy and Philip J. Scharper (Maryknoll: Orbis, 1983),59-79, argues that the same room is portrayed in the third gospel and Acts. This identification is, however, forced. 188 with both retrospective on the third gospel and prospective on ActS.14 After being reminded that Jesus had commanded the apostles to wait in Jerusalem (Acts 1:4; Luke 24:49), the reader hears Jesus echo the words of John the Baptist about the baptism with the Holy Spirit which Jesus will bring (Acts 1:5; Luke 3:16).15 Thus Acts quickly links the command that Jesus gave at the end of the third gospel (to wait for the promise of the Father, 24:49) with the implied promise which John announced at the beginning of the third gospel (the baptism with the Holy Spirit, 3:16) and provides the reader with the expectation that Acts will narrate the fulfillment of a promise that has remained unfulfilled throughout the third gospel. Then, as an indication of the results which the fulfillment of this promise will bring in the subsequent narrative, the apostles are told that they will become Jesus' witnesses in Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria and to the ends of the earth (Acts 1:8, cf. Luke 24:48).16 By echoing sayings from the third gospel and indicating that their ultimate fulfillment will be found in the subsequent narrative, the opening verses of Acts provide "a transition to a new stage in the story, a transition wherein the author does not provide new material but rather reworks and elaborates a part of the story already told."17 Fifth, although Acts gives the reader a sense of transition and anticipation, the reader also gains a sense that Acts, like the third gospel, is rooted in the religious life of Judaism. The disciples' first recorded question to the risen Christ

14 See Darryl W. Palmer, "The Literary Background of Acts 1:1-14," NTS 33 (1987): 427-38.

IS Although the statement to which Acts 1:5 alludes was spoken by John about Jesus (Luke 3: 16), Acts gives the impression that Jesus has spoken these words. On the discrepancy, see Tannehill, Unity, 2: 12.

16 "Sequential books in antiquity could begin in any number of ways. Luke apparently followed the pattern of presenting a retrospective summary and an outline of what was to follow." Mikeal C. Parsons, "Christian Origins and Narrative Openings," RevExp 87 (1990): 403.

17 Johnson, Acts ofthe Apostles, 28. 189 concerns the eschatological fulfillment of Israel's fate (1:6)!18 As the new community seeks to understand Judas's betrayal of Jesus, Peter interprets this event as a fulfillment of Scripture (1:16) and points the community to the Septuagint as it seeks a replacement for Judas's abandoned ministry (Acts 1:20; cf. Pss 69:26 [68:26 LXX]; 109:8 [108:8 LXX]19). After narrowing down the apostolic candidates to two persons, the community follows the Jewish tradition of casting lots to determine God's will in the matter (Acts 1:26; cf. Lev 16:8; Num 26:55,33:54; Josh 19:1-40; Mic 2:5; Jonah 1:7_8).20 Thus although the reader senses that a transition is occuring within the community, the reader is certain that this transition does not entail an immediate abandonment of the external frame of reference of first century Judaism. Because the reader has found such strong emphasis upon the continuity of the content between the third gospel and Acts, the reader is able to presume that the same frames of reference apply for reading the message of Jesus' witnesses in Acts as applied for reading the message of Jesus in the third gospel. As I. Howard Marshall explains: Luke has emphasized the unity between the story of the ministry of Jesus and the story of the beginning of the church. The Gospel tells what Jesus began to do and teach; Acts relates what he continued to do and to teach through the agency of his witnesses.21

IS The ambiguity of the apostles' question (i.e., what they meant by the restoration of the kingdom to Israel) is not significant, because Jesus quickly rebuffed them for seeking information which God has chosen not to reveal to humanity (1:7-8). The narrative emphasizes Jesus' answer, not the apostles' question. See Gerhard A. Krodel, Acts, Augsburg Commentary on the New Testament (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1986),59-60.

19 On Luke's adaptation of these Davidic verses for his purposes, see Dunn, Acts of the Apostles, 19-20; Barrett, Acts ofthe Apostles, 100; and Haenchen, Acts ofthe Apostles, 161.

20 Casting lots was a means of assuring that God alone made the decision about who would replace Judas. As Haenchen, Acts of the Apostles, 162, correctly observes "in this election the human factor is excluded: it is God who is choosing." Also see Jiirgen Roloff, Hechos de los Apostoles, tr. Dionisio Minguez (Madrid: Ediciones Cristiandad, 1984),62.

21 The Acts ofthe Apostles, TNTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978),55. 190 Given the emphasis upon continuity, the reader presumes that the same external frames of reference are relevant for Acts as were relevant for the third gospel: those of early Christianity, of Greco-Roman historiography, and of Jewish piety.

Discovering New Gaps To Fill (Acts 2: 1-6:7) The closure which the reader had attained for his reading of issues of wealth and poverty in the third gospel has not been immediately challenged in Acts. The characterization of Judas as greedy was the only reference to issues of wealth and poverty within the first chapter of Acts, and this reference conformed to the reader's expectations by echoing a similar characterization of Judas which appeared in the third gospel (22:3-5). In chapters two through six of Acts, however, the closure which the reader had attained is repeatedly challenged as significant gaps appear. The reader will be confronted with conflicting perspectives on the social and economic structures of the earliest Christian community and will be forced to fill in gaps which arise as a result of those conflicting perspectives.

A) Pentecost and Its Aftermath (Acts 2:1-47) The apostles and their fellow-believers did not have long to wait for the Father's promise. They soon were filled with the Holy Spirit in fulfillment of the Father's promise (2:4). When onlookers criticized the believers' actions, Peter responded by preaching a sermon which explained this event in light of Septuagint teachings (2:13-36).22 Those who heard this sermOn responded positively, and, in an echo of the crowd's response to the programmatic sermon of John the Baptist (Luke 3:10-14), asked, "What shall we do?" (Acts 2:37).

22 This sennon, like all of the speeches in Acts, is probably a Lukan creation. In Greco­ Roman historiography, authors created speeches which they believed were appropriate to the occasion for which the speech was offered. See Conrad Gempf, "Public Speaking and Published Accounts," The Book ofActs in Its Ancient Literary Setting, 259-304. 191 Whereas John had answered this question with a series of ethical (economic) directives, Peter answers it with a call for repentance and baptism (2:38-40). After Peter's call for repentance, the character of the narrative changes from a "scene" (in which narrative time is roughly equivalent to the real time required for the narrated events to transpire) to a "summary" (in which narrative time is condensed to a faction of the real time required for the narrated events to transpire [2:41-47]).23 The first important references to issues of wealth and poverty occur within this summary. This summary begins by recording the baptism of the new believers (v. 41) and their religious practices (v. 42). The narrator then characterizes the community's social practices, explaining: all of the believers were together and possessed all things in common and were selling possessions and goods and distributing them to everyone as anyone had need. Day by day, they were continuing together in the temple, breaking bread from house to house, they took their food in gladness and simpicity of heart (2:44-46).24

This summary creates disruption in the reader's consistency-building. Throughout the process of reading the third gospel, the reader had progressively developed a gestalt in which concern for freedom from greed on one's own part and for the needs of others were regarded as the key elements of a consistent reading of issues of wealth and poverty in the third gospel. This reading of the

23 "Here the narrative illustrates the alternation between 'scene' and 'summary' that is common also in novels. A 'scene' describes a particular occasion in some detail, usually with dialogue between characters, and the amount of time taken in narration equals by convention the amount of time occupied by the narrated event. The 'summary' combines events so that the time of the narrative is less, often much less, than the time ofthe events." Tannehill, Unity, 2: 43.

24 The historical accuracy of the characterization in this summary has been widely debated. Although an analysis of the historical plausibility of this description is irrelevant to this reading, we may conclude with Alfred Wikenhauser's Los Hechos de los Apostoles (Barcelona: Herder, 1981), 103, that if this characterization of the early community's social structure has any historical basis, the Lukan portrait is "simple hyperbole." As Roloff, 98, explains, the function of such summaries in Acts is "to typify and to generalize," not to provide precise historical depictions. For further discussion, see the excursus on "The Origin and Character of the 'Community of Goods'" on pages 194-99 of this dissertation. On the characterization of the Western text of this summary, see Josep Rius-Camps, "Las Variantes de las Recensi6n occidental de los Hechos de los Apostoles VI (Hech 2,41-47)," FN 8 (1995): 199-208. 192 third gospel did not address issues of community organization or how such issues may influence one's reading of issues of wealth and poverty. Yet this summary in the early chapters of Acts seems to place the issues of possession and need within the sphere of community life. The account is, however, plagued by ambiguity. The reader is unclear about who sold possessions, when they sold them and in what quantity, who distributed the proceeds and how they distributed them. These ambiguities leave the reader with numerous gaps to fill. The reader can tentatively fill in some of the gaps by drawing upon the conclusions reached from reading the third gospel. The summary may simply illustrate the ethic of greedlessness and generosity promoted within the third gospel. It is plausible to suppose that persons who had resources

25 (Ta KTIUJ.aTa Kal TaS' i),TTap~ElS', v. 45 ) sold a portion of those resources when needs arose within the community and that these persons themselves then distributed the proceeds to community members who were in need of assistance?6 Such a reading is appropriate to the external frame of reference of the Greco­ Roman world. Greco-Roman writers often promoted the ideal of having "all things in common" with one's friends, by which they meant not literal selling or joint ownership but rather the willingness to help one's friends economically when the need arose. 27 Although some readers suggest that this summary envisages the proceeds from the sale of possessions being collected into a

2S "If KTIlIlUm and lrrrciP~El<; are to be distinguished it will probably be in the sense that the fonner represents land, the latter personal possessions." Barrett, Acts ofthe Apostles, 169.

26 This reading is widely supported. E.g., Haenchen, Acts of the Apostles, 192; Schneider, I: 291; Gonzalez, 81; Barrett, Acts ofthe Apostles, 169; Johnson, Acts of the Apostles, 59; and French L. Arrington, The Acts of the Apostles (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1988),35.

27 See Alan C. Mitchell, "The Social Function of Friendship in Acts 2:44-47 and 4:32- 37," lBL III (1992); 255-72. Mitchell argues that Acts is distinguished from most Greco-Roman traditions because it expands this notion of commonality and friendship across different socio­ economic levels of society. Generally, within Greco-Roman society, one would extend friendship only to one's social equals. On the Greco-Roman ideal of having all things in common, also see the excursus, "The Origin and Character of the 'Community of Goods'" on pages 194-99 of this dissertation. 193 common treasury,28 it is more plausible to suggest that the community was sustained by the actions of wealthy individuals liquidating a portion of their assets from time to time as needs arose within the community. In fact, the reference to the believers holding daily meetings in houses (v. 46)29 leads the reader to conclude that these early believers could not have sold all of their possessions. As Haenchen explains: This sharing of property presupposes that possessions were not disposed of. ... Whenever there is need of money for the poor of the congregation, one of the property-owners sells his piece of land or valuables, and the proceeds are given to the needy.30

Although the reader is uncertain if the gap created by this summary can be adequately filled by assuming that the narrative is characterizing the occasional actions of individual wealthy persons, the reader is confident that this summary is consistent with the third gospel's emphasis on the importance of the Christian community's "responsibility for the needy.,,31 The reader remains uncertain to what degree this introductory accoune2 of the early community's care for the

28 Some readers assume that the proceeds from the sale of possessions were placed in a common treasury (e.g., Roloff, 101 and Richard N. Longenecker, "The Acts of the Apostles," John-Acts, ed. Frank Gaebelein, Expositor's Bible Commentary [Grand Rapids: Eerdrnans, 1981], 290-91), but this assumption is not supported by the narrative up to this point.

29 John H. Elliot has argued that the household gradually replaces the temple as the center of worship and religious life in Acts. See "Temple Versus Household in Luke-ACts," The Social World of Luke-Acts, ed. Jerome H. Neyrey (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1991),211 and "Household and Meals vs. Temple Purity," BTB21 (1991): 102-08.

30 Haenchen, Acts of the Apostles, 192, emphasis Haenchen's. Krodel, 94, makes a similar observation asking the questions: "if all believers had sold their homes (cf. 4:34) how could they have met in their homes (cf. 2:46; 12:12)? If no one called anything his or her own, then how could anyone give alms?"

31 Krodel, 95. Similarly, Tannehill, Unity, 2: 46, notes that these traditions "recognize the needs of the poor as a moral claim."

32 On this summary as a "foundation story" in which a movement's original leaders and practices are depicted as ideals to be emulated, see Gregory E. Sterling, "Athletes of Virtue," JBL 114 (1994): 689-96. Also see Johnson, Acts of the Apostles, 62 and Alfons Weiser, Die Apostelgeschichte, Okumensicher Taschenbuchkommentar zum Neuen Testament (WUrzburg: Echter Verlag, 1981-85), 1: 104. 194 needy depicts a social structure for subsequent believers, but the emphasis upon the ethical imperative of helping the needy is consistent with the third gospel. Only further reading can help the reader determine if Acts promotes a particular social structure within which believers are to carry out their activities in behalf of the needy.

EXCURSUS The Origin and Character of the "Community of Goods" The Lukan depictions of the "community of goods" (Acts 2:44-45; 4:32- 35) have fascinated readers of Acts for centuries. Many pre-critical readers of Acts were struck by Luke's depictions of the early Jerusalem community's sharing, generosity and unity. They served as an ideal for monastic communities at least since the time of Augustine.33 These images of the early Christian community were occasionally even promoted as an ideal for the entire Christian church. John Wycliffe, for example, regarded Acts 4:32-35 to be normative of "true religion" and he, therefore, advocated the abandonment of private property.34 Although such pre-critical applications of the ideal of the community of goods are interesting in their own right, this excursus will be limited to the two major questions which modem critical readers have asked about

33 See Luc Verheijen, "Acts 4:31-35 in the Monastic Texts of Saint Augustine," Second Annual Course on Augustinian Spirituality, ed. R. Russel (Rome: Pontifical Institute, 1976),47- 66.

34 Cited in J. W. Hunkin's "British Work on the Acts," The Beginnings of Christianity, ed F. 1. Foakes-Jackson and K. Lake (London: Macmillan, 1920-33),2: 399. Of course, not all pre-critical readers of Acts interpreted the community of goods as did Wycliffe, but these traditions did serve as an important ideal for many pre-critical readers. A representative sample of pre-critical (patristic, monastic and Reformation) references to the community of goods can be found in Luke T. Johnson's The Literary Function of Possessions in Luke-Acts, SBLDS 39 (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1977), 1-2. Also see Daniel B. McGee, "Sharing Possessions," With Steadfast Purpose, ed. Naymond H. Keathley (Waco: Baylor University Press, 1990), 163-78 and Glenn W. Olsen, "The Image of the First Community of Christians at Jerusalem in the Time of Lafranc and Anselm," Les Mutations Socio-Cuitureiles, ed. R. Foreville (Anatole: Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, 1984), 341-53. On the pre-Reformation study of Acts in general (not merely in reference to the community of goods), see Paul F. Stuehrenberg, "The Study of Acts Before the Reformation," NovT29 (1987): 100-35. 195 these traditions: (1) What is the origin of these traditions, Lukan literary activity or historical events within the early Christian conununity? and (2) Does the conununity of goods depicted within these traditions describe a form of early Christian conununism? First, under the influence of historical criticism in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, readers often sought to discern the origin and historical reliability of Luke's traditions about the conununity of goods, which along with Acts 5:1-11 and 6:1-7, provide the only canonical accounts of the organization of social and religious life within the earliest (pre-Pauline) Christian conununity.35 The results of investigations into the origins and historicity of these traditions have largely reflected the fundamental differences within Lukan scholarship on questions of historicity. On the one hand, many readers could discern almost no historically reliable information within these traditions, regarding them as "a mere ideal."36 This ideal, or at least Luke's idealized

35 The fact that the early chapters of Acts contain the only sources of information about the history of the earliest Christian community in Jerusalem makes these chapters unique within the third gospel and Acts. The traditions in the third gospel can, of course, be compared with similar traditions in the other gospels; the traditions about Paul in the latter part of Acts can, of course, be compared to the traditions in the Pauline corpus. Yet the Christian tradition has preserved no other canonical (or significant non-canonical) traditions directly comparable to the Jerusalem traditions in the early chapters of Acts. This lack of comparable traditions, along with the perceived importance of the early Jerusalem .community's place within the history of Christianity, has served (in some critical circles) to intensify the desire to discern the origin and historical reliability of these unique traditions.

36 Paul Wilhelm Schmiedel, "Die GUtergemeinschaft der iiltesten Christenheit," Protestantische Monatschefte 2 (1898): 78. Also see Otto Schilling, Reichturn und Eigenturn in der altkirchlichen Literatur (Berlin: Herderische Veriagshandlung, 1908), 13-17; Julius Wellhausen, Kritische Analyse der Apostelgeschichte (Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung, 1914),5; Paul Wilhelm Schmiedel, "The Community of Goods," Encyclopedia Biblica, ed. J. S. Black and T. K. Cheyne (New York: Macmillan, 1899-1903), I: 877-80; and Wilfred L. Knox, The Acts oj the Apostles (Cambridge: University Press, 1948), 57. More recently, see Birger Gerhardsson, "Einige Bemerkungen zu Apg 4,32," ST (1970): 142-49; Sterling, "Athletes of Virtue," 689-96; Conzelmann, Acts oJthe Apostles, 24; and Barrett, Acts oJthe Apostles, 169. The subsequent story of Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:1-11) was-whatever its historical origins-then often regarded as a "fall" from this original ideal, a "fall" analogous to the sin of Adam and Eve. See, for example, Rudolf Schumacher, "Ananias und Sapphira (Apg. 5,1-11)," TGI 5 (1913): 824-25 and Richard Belward Rackham, How the Church Began (New York: Longsmans, Green and Co., 1906),40. 196 reconstruction of some unrecoverable bits of historical data/7 was often thought to originate from Luke's desire to present early Christianity as an ideal community38 which experienced perfect unity and love. 39 On the other hand, among readers who believed that they could discern some significant measure of

37 Although Dunn, Acts of the Apostles, 58, does not deny the possibility that these traditions have some historical basis, he suggests that "Luke looks back through rose-tinted spectacles." Even sCholars who insist that these traditions are rooted in historical events often acknowledge that the traditions in Acts present a highly idealized picture of the early Christian community (e.g., Roloff, 128-31).

38 Readers have debated the origins of the ideals which these traditions embodied Some readers have found the origin of these ideals in the writings of the Greco-Roman philosophers and other readers have found their origin in the OT. On the possible Greco-Roman origins of these ideals, see Schmiedel's "GUtergemeinschaft," 367-78. Also see Mitchell, "Social Function," 255-72; Pieter W. van der Horst, "Hellenistic Parallels to the Acts of the Apostles 2.1-47," JSNT25 (1985): 49-60; Jacques Dupont, "Community of Goods in the Early Church," The Salvation of the Gentiles, tr. John R. Keating (New York: Paulist Press, 1979),85-102; and David L. Mealand, "Community of Goods and Utopian Allusions in Acts II-IV," JTS28 (1977): 96-99. On the possible OT origins (particularly Deut 6:5 and 15:4) of these ideals, see Andreas Bigelmair, "Zur Frage des Socialismus und Kommunismus im Christentum der ersten drei Jahrhunderte," Beitrage zur Geschichte der christlichen Altertums und der Byzantinischen Literatur, ed. Albert M. Koeniger (Bonn: Kurt Schroeder Verlag, 1922), 84-84; and D. Otto Bauernfeind, Die Apostelgeschichte (Leipzig: A. Deichertsche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1939), 83. More recently, see Gerhardsson, "Einige Bermerkungen," 142-49 and Dunn, Acts of the Apostles, 59. Most contemporary critical readers, regardless of the amount of historical accuracy they accord to the traditions, agree that the presentation of the traditions in the context of Acts combines both Greco-Roman and OT ideals. E.g., Johannes Joachim Degenhardt, "Der ersten Christen und der irdische Besitz," Die Freude an Gott, ed Eleonore Beck and Eugen Sitarz (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1989), 150-56; Charles H. Talbert, Reading Acts (New York: Crossroad, 1997),63-64; Haenchen, Acts of the Apostles, 233; Barrett, Acts of the Apostles, 168- 69,255; Johnson, Acts of the Apostles, 58-59, 86-87,91; Krodel, 95; Gerd LUdemann, Early Christianity According to the Traditions in Acts, tr. John Bowden (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989), 61; Roloff, 127; Walter Schmithals, Die Apostelgeschichte des Lukas, ZB (ZUrich: Theologischer Verlag, 1982),54; Schneider, 1: 293; F. Scott Spencer, Acts (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997),55; Tannehill, Unity, 2: 45; Weiser, I: 136-37; and Witherington, Acts ofthe Apostles, 206.

39 On the possibility that these traditions serve Luke's interest in promoting the unity of the church, see Berrthard Weiss, Die Apostefgeschichte (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1893), 100; Ernest Renan, The Apostles (New York: G. W. Dillingham, 1894), 104-05; and F. 1. Foakes­ Jackson, The Acts of the Apostles, MNTC (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1931), 22. More recently, see Laude Bridel, "Espiritu Comunitario y Diaconia segun los Hechos de los Apostoles 2,42 y 4,32," tr. Jose Maria Hernandez, El Diaconado Permanente en fa Iglesia (Salmanca: Ediciones Sigueme, 1978), 301-08 and William Neil, The Acts of the Apostles, NCB (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973),93. 197 historically reliable infonnation within these traditions, the traditions were generally thought to record the story of a temporary arrangement within early Christianity. For those who accepted that these traditions had significant historical underpinnings, the problem became explaining why the community of goods was apparently so short-lived. As far back as 1897, Sanford H. Cobb was able to discern two distinct ways in which biblical scholars accounted for the brief existence of this community of goods.40 Some readers found the origin of the traditions in a failed social experiment which was motivated by religious enthusiasm and eschatological expectation;41 other readers suggested that the brevity of the community of goods was a result of the brevity of the Jerusalem church's

40 Sanford H. Cobb, "The Fellowship of Goods in the Apostolic Church," Presbyterian Reformed Review 8 (1897): 17-34. Cobb rejected both of the positions which he outlined. He argued for the existence of a "fellowship of goods" in which Christians were motivated by love to share voluntarily their resources with the needy. He believed that this voluntary sharing has been and should continue to be a characteristic of all Christian communities. Yet he clearly distanced himself from the compulsory and collectivist tendencies of communism. Although he argued for the normative value of the traditions' spirit of loving self-denial, he insisted that the "details" of the Jerusalem community's social arrangements are non-normative. For a similar distinction between the non-normative "form" and the normative "spirit" of the community of goods, see Karl Gerok, Von Jerusalem nach Rom (Glitersloh: Bertelsmann, 1882), I: 66.

41 For example, H. Holtzmann's "Die GUtergemeinschaft der Apostelgeschichte," StrajJburger Abhandlungen zur Philosophie (Tlibingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1884), 25-60, argues that Luke inherited traditions about a failed experiment in communal living, traditions which he then recast as an ethical ideal for early Christianity (i.e., a community of goods) in light of his own "Ebionite" tendency. Holtzmann's article covers much the same ground as Schmiedel's "Die GUtergemeinschaft," but Holtzmann accepts that the traditions have more basis in historical events than does Schrniedel. On the traditions as a failed experiment, see Kirsopp Lake, ''The Communism of Acts II. and lV.-VI. and the Appointments of the Seven," The Beginnings of Christianity, 5: 140-41. More recently, see Krodel, 118 and Charles S. C. Williams, A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, 20d ed., HNTC (London: A & C Black, 1964),71,96. Cf. Gonzalez, 102-07. On the role of enthusiasm and eschatological expectation, see Eduard Zeller, Die Apostelgeschichte nach ihrem Inhalt und Ursprung kritisch untersucht (Stuttgart: Carl Machen, 1854), 123; Ernst Lohmeyer, Soziale Fragen im Urchristentum (Leipzig: Quell und Meyer, 1921), 83; and Rackham, Acts ofthe Apostles, 42. More recently, see Martin Hengel, "Christliche Kritik am Reichtum," EvK 6 (1973): 21-25; Werner Georg Klimmel, "Der Begriff des Eigentums im Neuen Testament," Heilgeschehen lind Geschichte (Marburg: N. G. Elwart, 1965), 271-77; and Barrett, Acts ofthe Apostles, 168. Cf. Degenhardt, "Die ersten Christen," 155-56. 198 historically unique (and temporary) social and religious situation which created the need for it. 42 Second, in regard to the question of the existence of communism within these traditions, the opinion of critical readers is largely unanimous. Although a few scholars argued that early Christianity (as depicted in Acts) was in fact communistic,43 their arguments had little persuasive power over the majority of critical readers of Acts. The "communist" explanation of Christian origins

42 For example, John J. Owen's The Acts ofthe Apostles (New York: D. Appleton, 1875), 108, argues that the unique social organization of the earliest church resulted from the fact that many early Christians were "strangers in Jerusalem" who were thus forced to rely on their fellow Christians for support while visiting the city of Jerusalem. Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer's Critical and Exegetical Handbook to the Acts of the Apostles, ed. William P. Dickson, tr. Paton 1. Gloag (New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1883),70-71, suggests that the social organization of the early Jerusalem church was passed to the Jerusalem church from the life style of Jesus and of the disciples. Also see George W. Clark, The Acts of the Apostles, rev. ed. (Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, 1896),42. More recent interpreters have noted that if the earliest Christians organized themselves as a communal society, their social organization would not have been completely unique. In contemporary scholarship, frequent comparisons are made between the community of goods in Acts and the sharing practiced at Qumran. Some scholars see significant parallels between the traditions in Acts and the practices of the Qumran community (e.g., Brian 1. Capper, "The Palestinian Cultural Context of the Earliest Christian Community," The Book of Acts in Its Palestinian Setting, ed. Richard Bauckham, The Book of Acts in Its First Century Setting [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995], 323-56; Longenecker, "Acts of the Apostles," 290-91; Barrett, Acts of the Apostles, 167-68; Weiser, I: 104; Marshall, Acts of the Apostles, 1NTC, 84; Dunn, Acts of the Apostles, 37; and Josef Kiirzinger, The Acts of the Apostles, tr. Simon Young and Ericka Young, NTSR [New York: Crossroad, 1981], 1: 50). Other scholars emphasize the difference between the traditions in Acts and the practices at Qumran (e.g., Munck, 39; C. S. Mann, "Appendix IV: The Organization and Institutions of the Jerusalem Church in Acts," in Munck's Acts of the Apostles, 276-84; Schneider, 1: 288; Neil, 82; Witherington, Acts of the Apostles, 162; and Wikenhauser, 103-04.

43 In Germany, a few scholars argued that early Christianity was in fact communistic. See, for example, Albert Kalthoff, Die Enstehung des Christentums (Leipzig: Eugen Diederichs, 1904) and Karl Kautsky, Ursprung des Christenturns (Berlin, 1908), ET: The Foundations of Christianity, tr. J. F. Mins (New York: S. A. Russell, 1953). In the English-speaking world, where communism had a much smaller influence, scholars tended to argue only that early Christianity was socially progressive. See, for example, W. M. Grant, The Ideals of the Early Church (London: James Clarke and Co., 1923) and Clyde Weber Votaw, "Primitive Christianity: An Idealistic Social Movement," AJT22 (1918): 54-71. Leander Keck's "On the Ethos of Early Christianity," JAAR 42 (1972): 435-45 offers a succinct summary of the most important works which presented reconstructions of early Christianity as either a communistic or a socially progressive movement. 199 gained little support and much criticism from the scholarly community.44 The primary criticisms of communistic readings of the traditions about the community of goods were that the traditions in Acts, unlike communism, accepted the validity of private property,4S relied upon voluntary donations of property and goods,46 and failed to relate any theories about labor or production.47 Although the question of the "communism" of Acts is occasionally still raised,48 Kirsopp Lake's 1933 assertion of the anachronistic nature of the question of communism in Acts is generally (and correctly) accepted by most contemporary critical readers of Acts.49

44 In addition to the criticisms leveled against communistic readings of the community of goods in Acts (criticisms which we will soon consider), mainstream historians of early Christianity also denied the validity of reading patristic writers as advocates of communistic social and economic structures. See, for example, W. Haller, "Das Eigentum im Glauben und Leben der nachapostolichen Kirche," TSK 64 (1891): 478-563 and Otto Schilling, "Der Kollectivismus der Kirchenvater," TQ 114 (1933): 481-92.

45 E.g., Oskar Holtzmann, "Studien zur Apostelgeschichte," ZKG 14 (1892-94): 327-36; Johannes Behm, "Kommunismus und Urchristentum?" NKZ 31 (1920): 275-97; Lohmeyer, 83; George T. Purves, Christianity in the Apostolic Age (New York: Charles Scribner, 1900), 38; John William McGarvey, A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles (Cincinnati: Central Book Concern, 1882), 49; and Foakes-Jackson, Acts ofthe Apostles, 22-23.

46 E.g., Friedrich Hauck, Die Stellung des Urchristentum zu Arbeit und Geld (GUtersloh: T. Bertelsmann, 1921),94-99; Gotthard V. Lechler, The Apostolic and Post-Apostolic Time, tr. A. J. K. Davidson (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1866),82; McGarvey, Commentary on Acts, 49, 67; Wellhausen, Kritische Analyse, 9; Cobb, 24-25; and Meyer, Acts of the Apostles, 70-71.

47 E.g., Hauck, 94; Rackham, 42; Bigelmair, 84; and Cobb, 22-23. More recently, see Schmithals, Die Apostelgeschichte, 38-39 and Weiser, I: 137.

4' Among the more important recent investigations of the question are Helmut Merkel's "Urchristlicher Liebekommunismus?" Das Wort und das Schweigen-Freundesgabe K Kuenel, ed. H. G. Poehlmann and B. Vridaghs (Osnabrueck, 1992), 130-42 and Ulrich Wilckens, "Urchristlicher Kommunismus," Christentum lind Gesellschaft, ed. Wenzel Lohff and Bernhard Lohse (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1969), 129-44. Both offer some history of communistic readings of the traditions in Acts and both reject those readings.

49 Lake, "Communism of Acts," 140-41. 200 B) Life and Death in the Jerusalem Community (Acts 3:1-6:7) After the summary (2:41-47), the narrator again begins providing the reader with scenes which typify life within the early Jerusalem community. Whereas the previous scenes in chapters one and two were contained within the brief period between Jesus' ascension and Pentecost, the scenes within the third, fourth, and fifth chapters occur over an indefinite span of time. After the Pentecost event, which marked a distinct event that occurred at a specific and identifiable point in time, the narrator ceases to provide definite temporal references for the subsequent scenes about the Jerusalem community. In fact, these subsequent scenes do not even stand in clear temporal relationships to one another. (Distinct and identifiable references do not again appear in the narrative until late in Paul's ministry.50) Although the content of these Jerusalem scenes varies widely (e.g., healings, sermons, persecutions, benefactions, and deaths), issues of wealth and poverty arise in several different contexts to catch the reader's attention. In the first scene (3: 1-1 0), Peter and John heal a beggar at the temple gate 5 called beautiful. ! As they approach the temple for prayer, a lame man fixes his gaze upon them in the hope that they will give him some alms (vv. 2_5).52 While

50 William H. Malas's "The Importance of Acts 19:21-22 for the Literary Structure of the Book of Acts" (paper delivered at the Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, San Francisco, Nov. 24, 1997) pointed out that the book of Acts contains only indefmite references to time until after 19:22, when temporal references become more precise.

51 The location of this gate and the geography of the temple in the Lukan description are difficult to reconcile with what we know about the temple from other historical sources. Marshall, Acts of the Apostles, lNTC, 87, suggests that the gate which Acts calls "beautiful" could have been either at the entrance to the court of gentiles on the east side of the temple, or within the court of gentiles at the entrance to the court of women, or at the entrance to the court of Israel. Also see Christopher J. Cowton, "The Alms Trade," NTS 42 (1996): 475-76. It is best to avoid the historical question by admitting with Krodel, 97: "Probably, Luke himself had no clear picture of the temple any longer." Also see Dennis Hamm, "Acts 3,1-10," Bib 67 (1986): 305-19.

52 Spencer, Acts, 46-47, suggests that this scene contains an implied criticism of the temple establishment by emphasizing the sadly ironic picture of a beautifolly adorned gate with a human being lying in front of it begging for alms. 201 the man is looking at him, Peter announces, "Silver and gold do not belong to me, but what I have, this I give to you. In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, (rise and) walk!" (v. 6).53 The man is immediately healed54 and enters the temple to praise God (vv. 8-9). The man who "used to sit and ask for alms" (v. 10, NRSV) has been healed in the name of Jesus. Although this story provides the reader with important insights for understanding the larger narrative of Acts,ss this reading is primarily concerned with Peter's insistence that he has no gold or silver. Although some readers have suggested that this statement is incongruent with the earlier summary about the community of goods (2:41-47), the seeming incongruity results from a misreading of the earlier chapters of Acts.56 The earlier summary about the community of goods gives no indication that the apostles themselves have access to significant fmancial resources. Rather as C. K. Barrett explains, "Luke presents the apostles as poor men.,,57 The image of apostles, who possess no significant amounts' of

53 On the insertion of EYE1TE Kat (rise and), see Barrett, Acts 0/ the Apostles, 183.

S4 The complete absence of any expression of faith on the man's part emphasizes that this healing is not focused upon the lame man and his personal need, but rather upon "the profoundly eschatological nature of this entire narmtive." See Paul W. Walasky, "Acts 3:1-10," Int 42 (1988): 174.

55 This healing makes two important points for the narmtive. On the one hand, as Marshall, Acts o/the Apostles, TNTC, 86, explains, this story demonstrates the continuity between the deeds of Jesus and the deeds which the apostles are able to perform in his name. On the other hand, as Hatnm, "Acts 3,1-10: The Healing of the Temple Beggar as Lucan Theology," Biblica 67 (1986): 305-19, emphasizes, the story illustrates the eschatological fulfillment which has arrived with the apostles' post-Pentecost mission, a fulfillment which surpasses anything available through the temple cult.

56 Some readers (e.g., Krodel, 97 and Marshall, Acts o/the Apostles, TNTC, 88) assume that Peter had access to community funds which were entrusted to him (and the other apostles) by persons who had sold their possessions in order to care for the needy within the community (2:45). This reading violates the order of the narmtive, however, because the apostles are not depicted as trustees of the community funds until chapter four. Other readers (e.g., Talbert, Reading Acts, 182) suggest that Peter had no money because he participated in a community which had abandoned private property. This reading is also implausible because, as was demonstrated earlier, some members of the community continued to own houses within the second chapter.

57 Barrett, Acts ofthe Apostles, 182. 202 silver or gold,ss is consistent with the reading of the community of goods offered earlier. That is, the community of goods was sustained by wealthy benefactors selling some of their possessions to meet the needs which arose within the community. These benefactors themselves (or their agents) presumably distributed the money from their sales to the needy. The narrative gives the apostles no direct role to play in the benefactions described in the summary in chapter two, and they are without significant personal economic resources at this point in the narrative. The apostles' poverty at this point in the narrative provides the reader with yet another gap. What is the significance of their poverty? Have they begun espousing an ethic of self-impoverishment? Does their lack of silver and gold indicate a shift of perspective within the Lukan corpus or is this lack simply a narrative detail consistent with the expected results of their previously itinerant life style? The reader can answer such questions only after further reading. Peter's healing of the lame man provides the background for three other related scenes in which Peter plays a central role: a sermon to the crowds (3: 11- 26); a confrontation with the temple priests (4:1-22); and a time of renewed fellowship with the other believers (4:23-31). Although none of these scenes bears directly on issues of wealth and poverty, the subsequent summary and scenes (4:32-5:11) have an "obvious theme ofmoney."s9 The theme of money is introduced in a summary (4:32-35), which depicts the Christian community in idyllic terms similar to the depiction in the earlier

58 Peter's claim to have no silver or gold may be a hyperbolic means of emphasizing the contrast between the relative worthlessness of the alms which the beggar sought in comparison with the gift which Peter was preparing to give. Peter's statement does not necessarily require a literal interpretation. See Dunn, Acts ofthe Apostles, 44 and Neil, 83.

59 Gonzalez, Ill. 203 summary (2:41-47), and is then further developed in a positive and a negative illustration (4:36-5:11).60 The summary states that [32] the multitude of those who believed was of one heart and soul, and no one who possessed something said that it was his or her own, but everything was common for them. [33] And the apostles gave witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus with great power and great grace was upon all of them. [34] For there was not a needy person among them because as many as owned lands or houses, selling them, used to give the proceeds from the sale [35] and place it before the apostles' feet. And it was distributed to each as anyone had need (4:32-35).

This summary, like the previous one, contains many ambiguities. The reference to the believers having all things in common (v. 32) reinforces the picture of the believers' unity and presumes the same external frame of reference (i.e., the Greco-Roman concept of friendship) which was presumed in the earlier summary (2:44-45). In the subsequent verses, however, the reader is faced with new perspectives which create gaps for the reader to fill. The reader is told that "as many as" (aaOL, v. 34) owned houses or lands sold them. Some readers have found a conflict between these two verses. Ernst Haenchen, for example, insists: Verses 32 and 34 thus do not speak of one and the same attitude towards property: in verse 32 it is retained, in 34f. sold.... Luke has separated the one from the other by the statement about the Aposties.61

Although these verses do contain diverse perspectives which lack clear connections, the reader may tentatively build consistency by speculating that verses 34-35 merely add a new element, the apostles' role as the agents who distribute these gifts,62 to the existing arrangement. Yet even with the

60 The first illustration (4:36-37) may be regarded either as part of the preceding summary (the narrator continues to speak through verse 37) or may be considered a brief scene. The literary designation is not particularly significant since the nature of the content is clear. As Marshall, Acts a/the Apostles, 1NTC, 108, explains: "4:32-35 describes the pattern of life, and is then followed by two illustrations, positive [4:36-37] and negative [5:1-11], of what happened in practice."

61 Haenchen, Acts a/the Apostles, 233. Also see, Barrett, Acts a/the Apostles, 253.

62 On the apostles as intermediaries between the benefactors and the recipients of their gifts at this point in the narrative, see Schneider, I: 367. 204 introduction of the apostles' role as distributors of the money generated by the sales, individual ownership is still assumed. The apostles have authority over the proceeds from the sales, but the individual owners themselves apparently make decisions about what to sell and what money to bring to the apostles.63 Apparently, not everyone sold assets since those persons who did sell assets were said to own "lands and houses" (in the plural), suggesting that this selling was practiced only by the wealthier members of the community.64 The reader does not have closure for his emerging image of the early Jerusalem community, but it appears that the community was sustained by the generosity of wealthy individuals who liquidated assets as needs arose within the community. This picture may be confirmed or overturned by further reading. Regardless of the ambiguities associated with the exact sources of the Jerusalem community's funds, the reader is not surprised to find that these funds are directed toward the alleviation of needs within the community. The narrator explains that the community's generosity and willingness to liquidate assets so outweighed the community's needs that needs had ceased to exist within the community. "There was not a needy person among them" (v. 34).65 The logistical arrangements are not clearly defined in this account, but the community members' mutual concern for one another is unambiguous.66 As Luke Johnson explains,

63 Marshall, Acts of the Apostles, TNTC, 108, notes: "This way of putting the matter brings out the fact that the things which each person possessed evidently continued to be his own property until it was necessary to selI them for the common good" (emphasis Marshall's). Also see Barrett, Acts ofthe Apostles, 252.

64 "[T]he emphasis here is on the plurals chorion and oikion, which conjure an image of the better-endowed within the community." Brian J. Capper, "The Interpretation of Acts 5:4," JSNT 19 (1983): 121.

65 On this statement as an indication that this community fulfilled the ideals of Deut 15, see the excursus, "The Origin and Character of the 'Community of Goods'" on pages 194-99 of this dissertation.

66 As Gonzalez, 112, notes, Acts emphasizes the love practiced within the early community, not the social and economic structure. Also see Alfred Wikenhauser, Los Hechos de los Ap6stoles (Barcelona: Herder, 1981), 102. 205 "ownership was not utterly renounced . . ., but all grasping unto individual possessiveness was.,,67 After giving the reader this general picture of a generous community, the narrator tells the story of a specific act of benefaction within the community. 68 Barnabas, the first believer to need or receive an extended introduction by the narrator (4:36),69 sold a piece ofland and brought the proceeds to the apostles (v. 37). Barnabas's example provides a model for the ideal response of wealthy persons to the presence of need;io the subsequent chapter contains a less than ideal response (5:1-11). Immediately after recounting the benefaction presented by Barnabas, the narrator introduces Ananias and Sapphira,7! a couple who likewise sold a piece of

67 Johnson, Acts of the Apostles, 86. Similarly, Talbert, Reading Acts, 65, explains: "What concerns the evangelist are the social benefits of wealth rightly used. What he wants to avoid is the use of wealth in the service of private indulgence."

68 Johnson, Acts of the Apostles, 87, notes that the narrator uses the specific action of Barnabas to substantiate the generalizations of the summary.

69 Most of the characters in Acts are known to the reader from the third gospel. Other characters, including the two would-be apostles, Joseph and Matthias (1:23), are not significant to the subsequent development of the narrative and are thus quickly passed over. The narrator pays more attention to Barnabas because of his significance for the subsequent narrative. See Mikeal C. Parsons, "Christian Origins and Narrative Openings," RevExp 87 (1990): 403-22, especially 416. Dunn, Acts of the Apostles, 59, suggests that the existence of this account indicates that "it may well be the case that he [Barnabas] was the first man of substantial wealth and position who became a member of the Jesus people and that his contribution was the first substantial gift for the common fund."

70 The narrator's highlighting of Bamabas's actions has led some readers to conclude that Barnabas's liquidation of assets was the exception rather than the accepted norm within this community. For example, Munck, Acts of the Apostles, 22, points out: "It would not have been necessary to stress this if 'all of them' had done so." Also see Neil, 94 and Haenchen, Acts of the Apostles, 233. Cf. Krodel, 119.

71 Ivoni Richter Reimer's Women in the Acts of the Apostles, tr. Linda M. Maloney (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995), 2-6, infers, on the basis of the expression "with his wife Sapphira" (v. 1), that Ananias needed Sapphira's permission to sell the land and that the property, therefore, belonged to Sapphira before their marriage. According to Reimer, Ananias would not have needed Sapphira's consent for the sale unless the property was in her possession before the marriage began. Although this suggestion is possible, it is more plausible to infer that the narrator 206 property (5:1).72 Then, while not in his wife's company but with her full knowledge (v. 2), Ananias kept back a portion73 of the proceeds from the sale and laid the remainder at the apostles' feee4 Peter responded to Ananias's gift by asking Ananias why Satan had filled his heart, allowing him to lie to the Holy Spiries and to keep back part of the money (v. 3).76 Peter then explained that Ananias had no excuse for his lie:77 The land belonged to him before he sold it and the money belonged to him after he sold the land (v. 4).78 Ananias offered no

is simply demonstrating to the reader that both marriage partners were equally guilty and thus justifiably shared the same fate.

72 The exact meaning of KTij~a is unclear. It may refer to a field, a farm or a large estate. Barrett, Acts of the Apostles, 264-65, notes: "All we can say on the basis of this verse is that it does not mean cash, since it was sold for cash; a precise description of what was sold was of no particular interest to Luke." Also see BAGD, "KTij~a."

73 Many readers have found echoes of an OT narrative in this story. Marshall, Acts ofthe Apostles, TNTC, III, explains: "The verb kept back is identical with that used to describe the action of Achan in holding on to some of the spoil from Jericho which was meant to be handed over to the house of the Lord or to be destroyed (Jos. 7:1)" (emphasis Marshall's). Similar observations are made by Munck, Acts of the Apostles, 40; Schmithals, Apostelgeschichte, 56; Haenchen, Acts ofthe Apostles, 237; Johnson, Acts of the Apostles, 88; and Foakes-Jackson, 43.

74 Brian 1. Capper's "'In der Hand des Ananias ... '" RevQ 12 (1986): 223-36, suggests that the act of turning over money to the apostles has strong parallels to the ritual practices at Qumran. Also see Capper, "Acts 5:4,"11 7-31. Cf. Haenchen, Acts ofthe Apostles, 241.

75 Dunn, Acts of the Apostles, 64, is correct to note that this scene is presented as a conflict between spiritual powers (Satan and the Holy Spirit) over the control of a human being (Ananias) and a community. Peter has no active role in the conflict; he is merely the announcer for the event.

76 Reimer, 1, suggests that the actions of Ananias and Sapphira were motivated by greed, "the desire to acquire more and to secure themselves against the future." Although this reading is consistent with the reader's expectations, the narrative does not allow the couple to speak for themselves and thus to reveal fully their motives.

77 Foakes-Jackson, 42, is correct to note that "there is no hint of any merciful purpose in Peter's dealing with the guilty couple."

7. Barrett, Acts of the Apostles, 262, 267, finds a contradiction between 5:4 and 4:34. He argues that 4:34 implies that everyone who owned land sold it and placed the proceeds at the apostles' feet, while 5:4 implies that such selling was voluntary and optional. This contradiction exists, however, only for those who read 4:34 as meaning that everyone who owned any property sold all of it and gave away the proceeds. Such a reading is not required by 4:34 and is rendered implausible by the internal frames of reference provided in 2:44-45 and 5:4. 207 reply; he simply dropped dead (v. 5). Whatever the clinical cause of Ananias's death79 and regardless of modem readers' disdainso for this "frankly repulsive"s, and "most unnerving"S2 story, within the external frame of reference of the Greco­ Roman world, the story is a simple account of God "executing judgment."s3 The unity of the church was threatened by sin; that threat was met by divine intervention.84 After the young menS5 carried Ananias out and buried him, Sapphira approached Peter, was questioned by him, joined in her husband's lie and likewise died (w. 6_10).86 Although this story creates many difficulties for the devotional reader of Acts, it provides important perspectives for the reader seeking to develop a consistent reading of issues of wealth and poverty in Acts. The traditions about the community of goods in Acts created many gaps for the reader, particularlY gaps in regard to the scope of the community's liquidation and pooling of resources. The summaries (2:44-45 and 4:32-35) were ambiguous in regard to

79 Some readers conjecture that the death of Ananias (and later of Sapphira) was caused by a heart attack or shock (e.g., Witherington, Acts of the Apostles, 216, 218; Neil, 95; and Marshall, Acts of the Apostles, 1NTC, 112-13). Haenchen, Acts of the Apostles, 238, is correct to insist: "The meaning is wholly missed when attempts are made to translate the incident in terms of modem psychology, e.g., 'As a result of the shock treatment Ananias suffered a fatal collapse.'" Also see Krodel, 119.

80 "The story must be ranked among the most difficult for modem readers of Acts." Marshall, Acts ofthe Apostles, 1NTC, 110. Also see Spencer, Acts, 58 and Reimer, I.

81 Foakes-Jackson, 42.

82 Dunn, Acts ofthe Apostles, 62.

83 Haenchen, Acts of the Apostles, 238.

84 See Talbert, Reading Acts, 66.

85 It is unlikely that the description "young men" refers to any specially designated group of people or office holders within the early church. See Marshall, Acts of the Apostles, 1NTC, 112; Wikenhauser, 106-07; Bauernfeind, 85; and Neil, 95.

86 The events narrated here are extremely implausible, as Haenchen, Acts of the Apostles, 241, notes: "that the Christians should simply have buried the corpse of Ananias, without a word to his wife-even if this is indispensable to Sapphira'S story-sins against all objective and subjective plausibility." 208 exactly who sold possessions and the quantity in which they sold them. The summaries left the reader wondering if all community members sold all of their possessions or if only certain individuals sold selected possessions. Within this story, however, the reader has discovered a textual strategy which was commonly employed within the third gospel, that is, the textual strategy of using the words of a reliable character to clarify ambiguities which arise within the narrative. In this narrative, Peter, the apostle par excellence and the most reliable character in the narrative (with the exception of celestial figures), insists that every person has the right to retain his or her property and that every person has the right to retain the proceeds from any sale of property (5:4). As James Dunn explains, Peter's reproof of Ananias "makes clear that contribution to the common fund was neither compulsory, nor were contributors expected to give all their income or resources.,,87 Thus, Peter emphasizes that the motive behind the community of goods was not the renunciation of property, as if ownership itself was evil, but rather fidelity to God and concern for the needs of the community.s8 The reader is, therefore, able to fill in a significant gap within the narrative by drawing upon Peter's words to Ananias. The early Jerusalem community was sustained by voluntary benefactions from persons who liquidated some portion of their assets in order to provide assistance to those in need. Not everyone did nor was everyone expected to engage in such liquidation of assets, but those who did engage in such benefaction provided sufficient resources to care for all of the community's needs. Following the deaths of Ananias and Sapphira, the narrator provides another summary (vv. 12-16) and a lengthy scene dealing with priestly opposition to the Christian message (vv. 17-42). Issues of wealth and poverty do not become thematic again until early in chapter six where the reader encounters a [mal scene

87 Dunn, Acts a/the Apostles, 63.

SS See LUdemann, 64. 209 about the early Jerusalem community, a controversy over the care of widows. 89 By this point in the narrative, two distinct groups existed within the Jerusalem community. Although both groups were apparently Jewish in origin, one group, the Hellenists, apparently spoke Greek while the other group, the Hebrews, apparently spoke Aramaic. 90 The Greek-speaking Hellenists complained that their widows were being neglected in the distribution of food (v. 1).91 In response to this perceived neglect of the Hellenistic widows, the twelve summon the community together and explain that they do not wish to neglect their other responsibilities in order to wait on tables92 but that it would be appropriate for the community to choose "seven men of good reputation" to oversee this task (v. 3). The contrast between the selection of these seven93 and the selection of the replacement apostle (1 :15-26) is striking. Matthias, the replacement apostle, was chosen by casting lots, a method which excluded any human influence (1 :26); the seven were chosen by the community94 and installed

89 On the helplessness and vulnerability of widows within the Greco-Roman world, see Witherington, Acts ofthe Apostles, 248.

90 On the identity of the Hellenists and Hebrews, see Schneider, I: 405-16 and Haenchen, Acts ofthe Apostles, 265-69.

91 The fact that the Hellenistic widows were not a part of Jewish food relief has led some readers to suggest that the story stems from a time--Iater than that implied by the narrative­ when Christians and Jews had clearly distinguished themselves from one another. See Ludemann, 74-76 and Haenchen, Acts of the Apostles, 262. On the differences between the Christian and Jewish food relief, see Schneider, I: 423-24.

92 The story does not say whether the apostles were currently tending to this task themselves and wished to be released from this responsibility (e.g., Marshall, Acts of the Apostles, lNTC, 124-25) or whether they had not previously waited on tables and did not now wish to begin doing so (e.g., Schneider, 1: 425).

93 On the OT roots for the number seven, see Krodel, 132 and Marshall, Acts of the Apostles, lNTC, 126-27.

94 Talbert, Reading Acts, 75, suggests that this account demonstrates how the early community dealt internally with a threat to its unity. In the story of Ananias and Sapphira, God acted to preserve the church's unity and integrity; in this account, the believers themselves acted to preserve the church's unity and integrity. On the community's role in choosing the seven, see Schneider, I: 426. 210 by the apostles laying hands on them (6:5). In order to be considered for apostleship, one had both to have traveled with Jesus during his earthly ministry and to have seen the resurrected Christ (1:21-22); in order to be considered for membership among the seven, one needed only to have a good reputation and to be full of the Spirit and wisdom (6:3).95 The seven had no direct contacts with the earthly or risen Christ. With the appointment of the seven, leadership has expanded beyond the twelve and the original disciples of Jesus.96 Thus this account demonstrates a ''transition of leadership.,,97 Significantly though, the community continues its tradition of caring for the physical and material needs of its members.9s Even with the change of leadership, therefore, the reader's image of the early Jerusalem community remains largely intact. The early Jerusalem community is a community which is intensively focused upon caring for the needy within its ranks and which does so in an orderly and organized fashion. The funds for tllis care are provided by the generosity of its wealthier members. Even when the community experiences a transition of leadership, its commitment to care for those in need, particularly widows, remains firmly in place. Only further reading can determine if this image of the Christian community will change as the reader continues through the narrative.

95 The emphasis upon the need for members of the seven to have a good reputation is closely paralleled in the qualifications for leaders in the pastoral epistles. See I Tim 3:2, 7, 10 and Roloff, 155.

% On the expansion of Christian leadership from the original Palestinian Jewish leaders to non-Palestinian, non-Jewish leaders at this point in the narrative, see Edvin Larsson, "Die Hellenisten und die Urgemeinde," NTS 33 (1987): 205-25.

97 Johnson, Acts ofthe Apostles, III.

98 F. Scott Spencer's "Neglected Widows in Acts 6:1-7," CBQ 56 (1994): 715-33, is incorrect to assert that the apostles' unwillingness to wait on tables reflects negatively on their characters in Acts. The apostles are merely choosing to dedicate themselves to more important matters (cf. Luke 10:38-42). As Wikenhauser, 116-18, notes this account does not infer division or moral failure within the church; it describes the delegation of duties. 211 Encountering Negations of the Jerusalem Image (6:8-19:41) The reader has developed an image of the early Jerusalem community from the first five chapters and the early part of the sixth chapter of Acts. This earliest Christian community is imagined to have greatly emphasized its mission to care for the physical and material needs of its members. The money required for alleviating such needs was provided by individuals who liquidated assets from time to time, as needs arose within the community. The generosity of these benefactors was sufficient to prevent anyone within the community from experiencing unfulfilled needs. In fact, the community's attendance to needs was so central to its self-understanding that the community selected, and the apostles installed, seven men of solid reputations who were delegated responsibility for the care of widows, the community's most vulnerable and needy members. This image of a closely knit community with a well defined system in place to deal with the needs of its members is challenged in the subsequent chapters. This largely self-consistent image of the Jerusalem community is challenged by a host of smaller competing images, really just brief glimpses, of many different individuals and communities.

A) The Ministry of the Seven (6:8-8:40) Immediately after he was installed as a member of the seven, Stephen is reported "performing great signs and wonders among the people" (6:8 NASB). Although the activities which Stephen performs in the subsequent narrative bear little resemblance to the duties for which he was chosen (Le., waiting on tables and overseeing the distribution of food to widows within the Christian community, 6:1_6),99 the narrator emphasizes that the characteristics which made Stephen suited for his office, his possession of wisdom and the Spirit, served him

99 "The seven were selected precisely to be 'in charge of this responsibility of the daily distribution' (6:3). But although the entire narrative from this point [6:8] until the end of chapter 8 is devoted to two of the seven (Stephen and Philip), neither engages in the 'service of the tables.' Instead they are portrayed as prophets who continue the work of the twelve." Johnson, Acts a/the Apostles, Ill, emphasis Johnson's. 212 well as he debated with unbelieving Jews in the synagogue (vv. 9-10). Stephen's lengthy speech and eventual martyrdom are important developments within the book of Acts, but issues of wealth and poverty are made thematic neither in his speech (7:2-53) nor in his martyrdom narrative (7:54-60). The reader is left to wonder why Stephen is chosen to perform one set of duties and is then martyred while performing a completely different kind of task. Perhaps the early community's commitment to an organized and unified effort in behalf of the needy quickly waned. Perhaps Stephen's role as an evangelist to the synagogue marks a negation either of his role as a distributor of the community's benefactions to the needy or of the community's commitment to that task Or both. Only further reading can help the reader to determine the significance of the incongruity between the mission which the apostles delegated to Stephen and the task which he performed in the subsequent narrative. loo 101 Stephen's martyrdom was followed by a general ("house to house" v. 3 ) persecution of Christians which resulted in Christians and their message being scattered from Jerusalem (8: 1-4). Philip, one of the people who left Jerusalem, was, like Stephen, a member of the seven (8:5; cf. 6:5). Philip traveled to Samaria where his ministry apparently paralleled the preaching and wonders which had marked Stephen's ministry (8:6). Philip's preaching resulted in many conversions and baptisms, including those of a former magician named Simon (vv. 9_13).102 When the apostles heard about the success of Philip's ministry, they sent Peter

100 Schmithals, Apostelgeschichte, 63, plausibly suggests that historically Stephen's office probably existed only within a Hellenistic setting and that Luke has associated it with the twelve and the Jerusalem community in order to illustrate the continuity of the early church.

101 The houses being searched were those of wealthier Christians who offered their homes for Christian assemblies. See Barrett, Acts o/the Apostles, 393.

102 On the possibility that the traditions in Acts 8:9-40 were created (or shaped) to conform with the traditions in 2 Kgs 5, see Thomas L. Brodie, "Towards Unraveling the Rhetorical Imitation of the Sources of Acts," Bib 67 (1986): 41-67. 213 and John to join him. Upon their arrival, these apostles conferred the Holy Spirit upon many believers (vv. 14-17). Economic issues again briefly become thematic within this scene after the apostles' conferral of the Spirit. After he saw the apostles confer the Spirit upon persons, Simon103 offered Peter money for the authority to confer the Spirit upon people (8:18). Whatever motivated Simon's desire for the authority to confer the Holy Spirit-and greed is a likely motive,I04 Peter sharply condemned him and his request: "May your silver perish with you, because you thought you could acquire the gift of God through money!" (v. 20). As Ernst Haenchen explains, "Peter's meaning is 'To hell with you and your money! ,,,105 Peter holds out only a slight hope offorgiveness for Simon ifhe will sincerely repent (v. 22).106 For the reader interested in issues of wealth and poverty, this exchange is significant because it reinforces the principle of the relative worthlessness of monetary resources in comparison to spiritual gifts, a principle which was established by Peter's remarks to the lame man at the gate called Beautiful (3:6). Peter's rebuke of Simon also demonstrates that the apostles cannot be corrupted by money; greed has no hold on them. More importantly, however, it raises the

103 Many traditions within early Christianity were attached to the figure of Simon the magician. He was often associated with Gnostic traditions. Nothing in the canonical account, however, supports this association bet\veen Simon and gnosticism. See Roland Bergmeier, "Die Gestalt des Simon Magus in Apg 8 und in der simonianischen Gnosis," ZNW77 (1986): 267-75; Bauernfeind, 125-26; and Conzeimann, Acts, 63, n. 12. Cf. W. F. Albright, "Appendix VII: Simon Magus as 'The Great Power of God,'" in Munck's Acts ofthe Apostles, 305-08.

104 Witherington, Acts ofthe Apostles, 286, notes that Simon showed no interest in having the Spirit conferred upon himself; rather he wanted the authority to confer the Spirit on other persons. Witherington conjectures that Simon was motivated by greed and wished to make money by selling the Spirit to people. Similarly, Roloff, 187.

105 Haenchen, Acts of the Apostles, 304. Barrett, Acts of the Apostles, 413, notes that the author of Acts "has a marked dislike for those who make money out of their dealings with the supernatural. "

106 Peter's statement does not guarantee divine forgiveness for Simon even if he does repent Barrett, Acts of the Apostles, 418, explains: "The issue is not clear because Luke was not greatly interested in it; the personal fate of Simon was not his major concern." Similarly, Marshall, Acts of the Apostles, TNTC, 159, explains that "the point is simply that Simon cannot presume upon the mercy of God and take it for granted." 214 possibility that Peter and the apostles have begun to adopt a harsher, less accommodating, view toward the possession of money. Because of Peter's rebuke, the reader is faced with the possibility that the apostles are now espousing a view which holds that the mere possession of money is suspect. Only further reading can either confirm or deny the plausibility of this reading, but the reader is faced this possible negation of his previous reading. In the subsequent scene the reader quickly finds a reason to doubt the plausibility of reading the Simon narrative as a polemic against the possession of financial resources. After finishing their work in Samaria with the rebuke of Simon, Peter and John return to Jerusalem (8:14, 25) and the narrative quickly returns to Philip, who encounters an Ethiopian107 eunuch (8:27-40). This particular eunuch served as the treasurer for the Ethiopian queen (v. 27);108 he would thus certainly have been a wealthy individual.109 The eunuch was riding in his chariot and reading the book of IsaiahllO when Philip approached him and asked him if he understood what he was reading (vv. 28-30). The eunuch responded with a question: "For how could I, unless someone guides me?" (v. 31).lll Philip then provided him with a christological reading of Isaiah 53,112

101 The man's place of origin is often regarded as symbolic of ''the ends of the earth" (e.g., F. F. Bruce, "Philip and the Ethiopian," JSS 34 (1989): 377-86) or of Lukan universalism (e.g., Clarice J. Martin, "A Chamberlain's Journey and the Challenge of Interpretation for Liberation," Semeia 47 [1989]: 105-35).

lOS Although some readers have suggested that the term "eunuch" could describe a non­ castrated court official (e.g., Marshall, Acts of the Apostles, TNTC, 162), the term probably refers to a literal eunuch because of this man's proximity to the queen. See Krodel, 168 and Johnson, Acts ofthe Apostles, 155.

109 See F. Scott Spencer, "The Ethiopian Eunuch and His Bible: A Social-Science Analysis," ETE 22 (1994): 155-65, especially 155.

110 Most reading in the Greco-Roman world was done aloud, even when the reader was alone. See Bernard M. W. Knox, "Silent Reading in Antiquity," GRBS9 (1968): 421-35.

III The grammar of the eunuch's question (using the optative and Civ) may reveal Luke's attempt to imitate the speech pattern of a highly educated, upper class Greek speaker. See Haenchen, Acts of the Apostles, 311. 215 which resulted in his belief and baptism (vv. 36-38).113 Thus, the reader catches a glimpse of a clearly wealthy man who responded positively to the Christian message. His wealth presented no impediment to his spiritual progress. (In fact, the man progressed very quickly to baptism!) The reader, therefore, is not inclined to read Peter's earlier rebuke of Simon (v. 20) as indicative of Peter's hostility toward the possession of financial resources per se. Rather the reader understands the rebuke as indicative of Peter's hostility toward an inappropriate confidence in and use of financial resources (specifically the mistaken assumption that financial resources could enable one to treat the gift of God as merchandise to be traded like a commodity).

B) Events Leading To The Apostolic Council (9:1-15:29) After his encounter with the Ethiopian eunuch, Philip and the seven drop out of the narrative. The ninth chapter does, however, pick up a theme introduced within the narrative about Stephen, the theme of Saul's persecution of the church (9:1, cf 8: 1-3). While carrying out additional persecutions of the church, Saul the persecutor had an encounter with the risen Lord. As a result of this encounter, he became a disciple and was subsequently befriended by two Christian believers, Ananias and Barnabas (9:1-31). .J.\lthough Saul's conversion is an important development in the plot of Acts, the subsequent account of Peter's activity in

112 Marshall, Acts of the Apostles, TNTC, 163, correctly interprets the hermeneutical precedent being set, explaining that "the general principle which he [Philip] annunciates is significant. The Old Testament cannot be fully understood without interpretation. It needs a key to unlock the doors of its mysterious sayings. Jesus had provided such a key for the disciples (Luke 24:25-27, 44-47). Now Philip was being called upon to help the eunuch in the same way." Barrett, Acts of the Apostles, 428, is also correct to note that the eunuch's failure to understand does not indicate his lack of intelligence, only his failure to possess the christological insights necessary for a proper understanding.

1lJ Several readers have suggested that the eunuch's baptism into the Christian community represents the fulfillment ofIsaiah 56:3-5 because the eunuch, who had been excluded from complete participation in the Jewish community (via circumcision), is allowed complete identification with the Christian community (via baptism). The eunuch mayor may not have been of Jewish ancestry, but he was clearly acquainted with Judaism. See Witherington, Acts of the Apostles, 296; LUdemann, 105; and Martin, "Chamberlain's Journey," 108-09. 216 Lydda and Joppa is more significant for the reader interested in issues of wealth and poverty (9:31-43). While in Joppa, Peter learned of the death of a female disciple, Tabitha,114 whom the narrator describes as personally and financially generous

(ITA1lPllS EPYWV clya8wv Kat EAEll~OOWWV, v.36).1IS Although on one level this brief reference reaffirms the importance of generosity within the Christian community, on another level it partially negates a key aspect of the reader's previously formed image of the Jerusalem community. The reader has found that, within the Jerusalem community, benefactions were distributed to the needy by specifically recognized persons who acted as agents for the benefactors. The apostles functioned as such intermediaries in chapter four; the seven were appointed to this function in chapter six. According to the widows' words in this account (v. 39), however, no such intermediary stood between them and Tabitha. Although the reader cannot be certain about the significance of this different approach for dispersing benefactions, the reader may firmly conclude that Tabitha, like the Ethiopian eunuch, is a wealthy person who meets with the

6 narrator's approval. Her possession of significant financial resources II is not incompatible with the principle of generosity. Thus the reader is further convinced of the implausibility of inferring that the apostles, with Peter as their most prominent representative, are hostile toward the possession of significant financial resources. This lack of apostolic hostility toward those with significant financial resources is also illustrated by Peter's subsequent stay with a tanner

114 The feminine fonn of disciple (lla8f)Tpla, v. 36) appears only here in the New Testament, but it was common in other Greco-Roman literature. See Bruce, Acts ofthe Apostles, 248.

lIS This description of Tabitha is consistent with the actions of a pious Jew, particularly her attention to widows (v. 39). See Wikenhauser, 171 and Schneider, 2: 52-53.

116 Witherington, Acts of the Apostles, 331, is correct to note that the narrator's description of Tabitha demonstrates that "she was a woman of means, with the leisure and freedom to do good for others." 217 named Simon whose economic resources enabled him to provide Peter with an extended period of hospitality (9:43; 10:6,32).117 The tenth chapter provides more brief glimpses of issues of wealth and poverty in the form of incidental references to the economic conditions and arrangements which were prevalent within various segments of Christianity. In the first such glimpse, Cornelius, a centurion with enough wealth to have servants attending to his desires (10: 1-2, 7), had a vision in which God assured him that his alms had been observed by God (v. 4). In response to this vision, Cornelius sent men to see Peter, who had also had a vision to prepare him for Cornelius's emissaries (vv. 22). Peter then both extended hospitality to these gentile emissaries (at Simon's home, v. 23) and accepted their hospitality in return (v. 48).118 Although this exchange of hospitality serves primarily to reinforce Peter's acceptance of the gentiles in the face of objections from conservative Jewish believers (11:2-3),119 the exchange also illustrates that prominent members within the various Christian communities possessed homes large enough to

accommodate significant numbers of guests. J20 Thus the reader finds that

117 Barrett, Acts ofthe Apostles, 486, insists that this tradition can have no historical basis because Peter would not have stayed with a tanner, whose house would have been unclean according to Jewish law. On the other hand, Dunn, Acts of the Apostles, 130, and Marshall, Acts ofthe Apostles, 1NTC, 180, suggest that Peter's infraction of the law at this point foreshadows his subsequent rejection of the distinction between clean and unclean.

118 In the Greco-Roman world nearly all travelers, except for the very rich who owned estates throughout the empire, relied upon the hospitality of friends (or the friends of friends) for accommodations while traveling. See Brian M. Rapske, "Acts, Travel and Shipwreck," The Book ofActs in Its Graeco-Roman Setting, ed. David W. J. Gill and Conrad Gempf, The Book of Acts in Its First Century Setting (Grand Rapids: Eerdrnans, 1994), 1-48, especially 14-21. Also see Henry J. Cadbury, "Lexical Notes on Luke-Acts, III: Luke's Interest in Lodging," JBL 45 (1926): 305-22.

119 "His [Luke's] concern is ethnic-the inclusion of Gentiles in the promises of Abraham, and the removal of ethnocentric restrictions on social contact with them. This is the point of the Cornelius episode." Mark A. Plunkett, "Ethnocentricity and Salvation History in the Cornelius Episode (Acts 10:1-11:18)," SBLSP, ed. Kent Harold Richards (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1985),479. On the use of the hospitality as an indication of Peter's acceptance of gentiles, also see Johnson, Acts ofthe Apostles, 187 and Dunn, Acts ofthe Apostles, 187.

120 Peter insisted that one man's house accommodated himself and six other men (I I: 12). 218 Cornelius and other gentile believers are portrayed as both economically and spiritually prosperous. These brief glimpses into their lives show the reader that their positive economic circumstances enabled them to engage in the laudable ministries of almsgiving and hospitality. Thus the possession of significant economic resources takes on a positive function at this point in the narrative. Whereas the tenth chapter provided brief glimpses of believers who enjoyed financial sufficiency, the eleventh chapter provides a glimpse of a community in economic need. While in Antioch, Barnabas and Saul are met by a group of Christian prophets. One of these prophets, Agabus, predicted that a famine would soon strike the entire world (v. 28).121 In response to this impending crisis of need,122 each individual believer determined (wplaav EaEOTOS alJT(Dv, v. 29) to send whatever amount he or she could afford to the believers in Judea. ll3 After the individual believers gathered their funds together to send to their parent congregation, 124 the community entrusted

121 Although Acts states that this prediction came true during the reign of Claudius (v. 28), historians have been unable to detennine to what specific event, if any, the text refers. Many scholars (e.g., Marshall, Acts o/the Apostles, TNTC, 204; Barrett, Acts a/the Apostles, 563-64; Williams, Commentary on the Acts, 144; LUdemann, 135; Weiser, I: 280; and Longenecker, 404- 05) suggest that this text may refer to a famine which Josephus places in Judea between 46 and 48 CEo As Dunn, Acts a/the Apostles, 157, notes, however, "the whole episode is rather obscure." The reader cannot clearly detennine when the famine occurred, whether or not it was universal, and how Antioch would have possessed food when the rest of the world did not. Conzelmann, Acts a/the Apostles, 90, flatly asserts that "there was no worldwide famine. Luke did not note the inconsistency that Antioch would also have been involved in such a famine." On the Western text of verse 28, see Barrett, Acts 0/ the Apostles, 564 and Schneider, 2: 96.

122 On the consistency of concern for the needy within both the Jerusalem and the Antioch Christian communities, see Tannehill, Unity, 2: 149.

123 A number of readers have suggested that this gift from the Antioch community to the Jerusalem community symbolizes the unity of the church with the daughter congregation giving a gift to the mother congregation. See, for example, Weiser, I: 280; Schneider, 2: 94; and Foakes­ Jackson, 102-03.

124 The money for this gift to Jerusalem was not gleaned from an existing community fund, but rather was raised from the donations of individual members, causing Barrett, Acts 0/ the Apostles, 565, to observe: "There is no longer any suggestion of pooling capital.. .. The Christians were engaging in business and some at least were prospering (EimOpElTO, had plenty [v. 29))." 219 Barnabasl25 and Saul to deliver the money to the elders in Jerusalem.126 Thus, this brief glimpse of issues of wealth and poverty in the eleventh chapter reaffirms the centrality of the Christian community's commitment to alleviating the needs of its adherents, while affIrming the right of individual believers to determine the amount of their respective gifts. The narrator opens the twelfth chapter by introducing Herod's persecution of the Jerusalem community, a persecution which saw the death of the apostle James and the imprisonment of Peter (vv. 2-3). Peter, who was also marked for death, was spared a martyr's death by an act of divine intervention which effected his escape from prison. 127 Upon gaining his freedom, Peter proceeded to join the "many" believers who were gathered for prayer in the apparently spacious homel28 of Mary, the mother of John Mark (v. 12).129 When he arrived, Peter recounted how "the Lord led him out of prison" (v. 17). After Herod's death, another event

125 Tannehill, Unity, 2: 148, notes that Barnabas was singled out as a model of generosity within the Jerusalem community (4:36-37) and is now placed at the center of this relief effort. The association of Barnabas with charitable relief may well have historically reliable origins.

126 Although this reading will make no subsequent effort to harmonize, compare or contrast the traditions of Acts with the traditions in the Pauline corpus, in regard to these traditions about the "apostolic council," it is safe to conclude with Conzelmann, Acts of the Apostles, 91, that "it is not possible to harmonize the data of Galatians and this combination of traditions in Acts." Haenchen, Acts of the Apostles, 375, is also correct to note that this account does not envisage the lengthy process of collection which characterizes the offering in the Pauline corpus.

121 David T. N. Parry's "Release of Captives," Luke's Literary Achievement, 156-64, argues that Peter's escape from prison points back to the release of captives predicted in the third gospel (4: 18). It is important to note, however, that the imagery in the two texts is very different. In this account, Peter is not released from prison; he is rescued (E~alpw, v. 11) from impending death.

128 "The reference to 'many' meeting in the household suggests a house of considerable size, as does the reference to a courtyard gate and a female gatekeeper. That a woman is the head of this house is noteworthy; presumably she was a widow." Witherington, Acts of the Apostles, 386.

129 The fact that Mary's name is associated with her son, and not with her husband, demonstrates how well known John Mark was within early Christian tradition. See Roloff, 255. On the character of John Mark in Acts, see C. Clifton Black, "John Mark in the Acts of the Apostles," Literary Studies in Luke-Acts, ed. Richard P. Thompson and Thomas E. Phillips (Macon: Mercer University Press, 1998), 101-20. 220 brought about by divine intervention (v. 23), Saul and Barnabas are reported to be

in Jerusalem130 where they have delivered the offering from Antioch (v. 25).131 The twelfth chapter thus provides a brief glimpse of a respected believer, Mary, the mother of John Mark, who lives in a spacious home and also a glimpse of a community which received financial assistance from outside of its immediate vicinity. The reader's previous image of the Jerusalem community as a community without need is being negated and replaced by a more diverse set of images which includes communities populated both by those in need and by those with more than adequate resources. When Barnabas and Saul returned to Antioch in the thirteenth chapter, the Christian community there set them aside for special service132 in keeping with a directive from the Holy Spirit (13:1-2). Although issues ofwea1th and poverty do not figure prominently into their ministry at this point, the reader observes that the mission of Barnabas and Saul (Paul after 13:9) met with both acceptance and opposition from the wealthier members of Greco-Roman society. On the one hand, their ministry brought about belief from a proconsul named Sergius Paulus

130 The text is ambiguous. It probably implies that Barnabas and Saul were in Jerusalem throughout Herod's persecution. If these representatives from Antioch were in Jerusalem during this persecution, their presence may symbolize the unity of the church even under persecution. See Roloff, 257-58 and Haenchen, Acts ofthe Apostles, 387.

131 Verse 25 is plagued by grammatical ambiguities and textual variants. In any case, the text is clear that Barnabas and Saul did spend at least some time in Jerusalem. It is safe to assume that while there they distributed the funds which they had raised in Antioch. Specifically, in regard to the detailed grammatical and textual questions, Witherington, Acts of the Apostles, 375, explains: "The simplest solution is to accept the ElS' [sic] is original but that the difficulty can be resolved by a matter of punctuation: 'Barnabas and Paul returned, having completed their mission unto (or in) Jerusalem, and brought with them John whose other name was Mark.' The scholarly support for this conclusion is substantial." Also see Bruce, Acts of the Apostles, 290-91; Barrett, Acts of the Apostles, 595-96; Johnson, Acts of the Apostles, 216; and Marshall, Acts ofthe Apostles, TNTC, 213.

132 The confidence which the churches in both Jerusalem and Antioch placed in Saul, particularly their willingness to allow him to act as an agent over the transportation of their funds, implies that Saul was "a person of some wealth and standing." See Jerome H. Neyrey, "Luke's Social Location of Paul," History, Literature, and Society in the Book of Acts, 251-79, especially 263. 221 (vv. 7-12),133 while, on the other hand, they were opposed not only by "the Jews" but also by other highly placed and affluent female members of the community (v. 50).134 Issues of wealth and poverty do not again become thematic within the ministry of Paul and Barnabas. Their joint ministry does, however, prompt the final appearance of the apostles within the book of Acts. In response to criticisms which the ministry of Paul and Barnabas aroused in regard to the issues of circumcision and the Mosaic law, the apostles are consulted and prompted to offer a written decree (15:23-29) to settle these issues which first gained prominence during Peter's interaction with Cornelius (l 0: 1-11: 18).

C) Paul's Post-Council Ministry (15:30-19:41) After the apostolic council, Paul and Barnabas had a sharp disagreement

(1Tapo~uov.6S', 15:39)135 and departed in opposite directions to continue their respective ministries. After this apostolic conference and the subsequent split between Paul and Barnabas, the reader observes an important shift of perspective within the narrative. The implied author, who has kept his own first person comments tightly contained within the prefatory remarks at the beginning of the respective volumes (Luke 1:1-4; Acts 1:1-2), suddenly begins participating in the events which are being narrated and begins to speak in the first person. The narrator explains how Paul's vision of a Macedonian man led "us" to realize the

133 On the historical identity of Sergi us Paulus, see Schneider, 2: 221. Regardless of his identity, any person holding the office of proconsul would be wealthy.

134 "Though he often records a favorable response to the gospel of people of considerable social status, it is to Luke's credit that as a historian he also records the negative reaction to the gospel of such people, as he does here." Witherington, Acts ofthe Apostles, 417. These women were possibly proselytes or godfearers. See Schneider, 2: 147; Bruce, Acts of the Apostles, 315; Haenchen, Acts of the Apostles, 414; Marshall, Acts of the Apostles, TNTC, 231; and Neil, 161. Cf. Barrett, Acts ofthe Apostles, 659 and Roloff, 280.

135 "Luke does not depict his heroes as free from human passions; he uses a strong tenn to describe this quarrel." Bruce, Acts ofthe Apostles, 349. Also see BAGD, "'ITapo~u()'116S'." 222 need to preach in Macedonia and how "we" traveled to Macedonia and stayed there for some days (16: 10_12).136 The narrator's participation in the narrative does not, however, immediately provide the reader with any new perspectives on issues of wealth and poverty. Rather the reader continues to find only brief glimpses similar to those found in chapters nine through fifteen, particularly images of Paul accepting hospitality from wealthy converts and believers. In one account, Lydia, a seller of purple (16:14-15),137 is singled out as having responded positively to the Christian message. In keeping with the precedents set earlier in the narrative, Paul, Silas and the narrator accept the hospitality from their prosperous138 convert, Lydia, as

136 The origin of these (and subsequent) "we" references has been widely debated. Some readers (e.g., Rapske, "Acts, Travel and Shipwreck," 1-48; Witherington, Acts of the Apostles, 480-86; Colin J. Herner, The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History, 308-34; and Marshall, Acts of the Apostles, TNTC, 263) argue that the author used the fIrst person when he was relating events in which he himself (along with Paul) took part. Other readers (e.g., Eckhard PlUmacher, "Wirklichkeitserfahrung und Geschichtsschreibung bei Lukas," ZNW 68 (1977): 2-22; Stanley E. Porter, "The 'We' Passages," The Book of Acts in Its Graeco-Roman Setting, 545-74; and Schmithals, Apostelgeschichte, 148) suggest that the author drew upon a previously written source. Still other readers (e.g., Vernon K. Robbins, "By Land and By Sea," Perspectives on Luke-Acts, ed. Charles H. Talbert [Danville: Association of Baptist Professors of Religion, 1978], 215-42; JUrgen Wehnert, Die Wir-Passagen der Apostelgeschichte [Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989]; Haenchen, Acts of the Apostles, 81-90,489-91; and Krodel, 304) suggest that the first person narration is a literary device employed by an author who was not present during the activities being narrated. It is probably appropriate to conclude that the origin of this fIrst person narration cannot be accurately determined. See Susan Marie Praeder, "The Problem of First Person Narration in Acts," NovT29 (1987): 193-218; Conzelmann, Acts ofthe Apostles, xxxviii-xl; and Johnson, Acts ofthe Apostles, 296-97.

137 The marketing of purple garments, although attested from the third millennium BCE on, was particularly important and lucrative during the fIrst and second century CEo See Meyer Reinhold, History of Purple as a Status Symbol in Antiquity, Collection Latomus 116 (Bruxelles: Societe d'etudes latines, 1970), especially 48-61.

138 Critical readers (e.g., Witherington, Acts of the Apostles, 492-93; Wikenhauser, 275; Haenchen, Acts of the Apostles, 498; Roloff, 327-28; Gonzillez, 239; Johnson, Acts of the Apostles, 293; Krodel, 307; Neil, 182; and Dunn, Acts ofthe Apostles, 219) are largely agreed that Lydia possessed signifIcant fmancial resources. Neyrey, "Luke's Social Location of Paul," 264- 65, emphasizes three factors which point to her wealth: (1) Her vocation as a dealer in lUXUry goods; (2) her possession of a home large enough to accommodate Paul's missionary team; and (3) her name (Lydia) which indicates that she was a Greek-speaking merchant. 223 they continue their missionary work (v. 15).139 In another account, hospitality is subtly contrasted with greed. When Paul calls a demon out of a girl (16: 16-18), the "avaricious motives,,14o of the girl's masters are revealed by their anger with Paul. The girl's pmctice of divination had provided significant income for them 14 1 and they were more concerned over this lost income than over the girl's well­ being. 142 In revenge for the perceived wrong which Paul had committed against them, they seized Paul and Silas143 and brought them before the legal authorities, who promptly had them beaten with rods (vv. 19-22). The reader quickly finds a more positive response to Paul and his message, however. During the overnight stay in prison which resulted from his arrest, Paul helped his jailer to find salvation and then received hospitality from his captor (v. 30-34). Paul's subsequent hearing before the chief magistrates provides the reader with a potentially important new perspective on Paul and his probable economic status. Paul was a Roman citizen (16:37).144 An appeal to this Roman citizenship got Paul and Silas quickly released from prison. Although Paul's Roman

139 On Lydia's extension of hospitality to the missionaries as a symbol of the sincerity of her faith, see Marshall, Acts of the Apostles, TNTC, 268 and Witherington, Acts of the Apostles, 493.

140 Johnson, Acts ofthe Apostles, 295.

141 Witherington, Acts of the Apostles, 494, notes a pun in the narrative. Acts uses the same verb (eefiAeev) to describe both the evil spirit leaving the girl (v. 18) and the owners' hope of profit leaving them (v. 19).

1'2 Dunn, Acts of the Apostles, 221, notes that the girl's masters were "more concerned for profit than for their slave." Witherington, Acts of the Apostles, 494, notes that Acts often implies that paganism and magic were motivated by the desire for profit.

143 The narrator drops out of the narrative in verses 18 and 19. The narrator is present with Paul when he cast the spirit out of the girl (v. 17), but the crowd apparently did not seize the narrator when it seized Paul and Silas in reaction to the exorcism (v. 19).

144 "It is impossible, given the state of our evidence, to state whether in fact Paul was a citizen, but the fact is critical to Luke's narrative." Johnson, Acts of the Apostles, 30 I, emphasis Johnson's. For more on the historical plausibility of Paul's claim to Roman citizenship in Acts, see Brain Rapske, The Book of Acts and Paul in Roman Custody, The Book of Acts in Its First Century Setting (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994),83-89. 224 citizenship implies that he possessed significant social standing,145 this new perspective, like the introduction of the narrator's participation in the narrative, has little immediate influence on the reader's understanding of issues of wealth and poverty. Immediately after gaining the new perspective on Paul provided by knowledge about his Roman citizenship, the reader finds the earlier theme of hospitality reemerging as Paul and Silas return to Lydia's home for a brief reunion with the Christian believers who regularly met there (v. 40). The reader also finds common themes reemerging as Paul continues to have affluent members of Greco-Roman society respond positively to his message (17: 12) and as Paul accepts hospitality from his converts and other believers (18:3, 7). Amid these common and recurring themes, however, another new perspective on Paul and his economic status arises in the narrator's description of the common bond which Paul shares with his Corinthian hosts, Aquila and Priscilla (18:3). Paul is, like Aquila and Priscilla, a tent makerl46 by trade. Although such labor would not have been performed by those at the highest levels of Greco-Roman society, skilled artisans within the Greco-Roman world were often proud of their vocationsl47 and business owners like Aquila and Priscilla could have possessed significant economic resources. 148 This new perspective on Paul, like the fact of his Roman citizenship, helps the reader to identify Paul's

145 "Luke surely appreciates the snobbery index that Roman citizenship brings." Neyrey, "Luke's Social Location of Paul," 278. Similarly, the willingness of Gallio, the chief political leader in the vicinity, to hear Paul's case provides evidence that Paul possessed significant social status. See Neyrey, "Luke's Social Location of Paul," 261.

146 The exact meaning of OKT]V01TOlOS is unclear. See BAGD, "OKT]V01TOlOS."

147 Witherington, Acts of the Apostles, 546, emphasizes that Jews appreciated the ability to work with one's hands, that they expected all rabbis to engage in such work, and that Greco­ Roman pagans were frequently active in trade guilds. Persons often had their vocations inscribed on their tombstones.

148 Dunn, Acts ofthe Apostles, 241, suggests that the ability of Aquila and Priscilla to host Paul and to travel indicates that they were all "well to do." 225 social status, but does not immediately influence the reader's understanding of issues of wealth and poverty. The reader once again encounters familiar themes in the juxtaposed responses which two different groups of pagans have to Paul's message in chapter nineteen. One group repented, abandoning the practice of magic and burning their expensive magic books in mass (19:18-19).149 The sincerity of their repentance is demonstrated by the value of the books which they burned, 50,000 pieces of silver, or, as James Dunn says, "a substantial fortune."150 Another group, in direct contrast to these repentant magicians, rioted against Paul (19:21_41).151 Demetrius, a silversmith who instigated the riot, feared that Paul's condemnation of idols would bring an end to his lucrative trade, which owed its existence to the temple of Artemis (vv. 24_26).152 In his attempt to arouse his fellow citizens, Demetrius offered a speech that "is blunt, direct, emotional, and without rhetorical merit.,,153 He opened his speech by plainly stating his self-interest and his concern for profit: "Men, you know that our prosperity depends upon this business" (v. 25,

'49 Book burning was common in antiquity, but was seldom practiced voluntarily by the owners of the books. Normally book-burning was done by persons who forcibly removed them from their owners and burned them in an attempt to silence the ideas contained within the books. See Arthur Stanley Pease, "Notes on Book Burning," Munera Studiosa, ed. Massey H. Shepherd and Sherman E. Johnson (Cambridge: Episcopal Theological School, 1946), 145-60.

,so Dunn, Acts of the Apostles, 261. Marshall, Acts of the Apostles, TNTC, 312, argues that this price may not hyperbolic. Witherington, Acts of the Apostles, 582, infers that those who burned these books and who joined the church almost certainly possessed significant amounts of wealth in the form of other assets as well. The extreme value of these books is illustrated by the fact that Judas received only 30 pieces of silver when he betrayed Jesus (Matt 26: 15).

'51 This story may be patterned after Jewish accounts of riots and violence against Jews. If so, the story may function to demonstrate that such violence is unjustified and that Christians, like Jews, deserve protection from the Roman authorities. See Robert F. Stoops, "Riot and Assembly: The Social Context of Acts 19:23-41," JBL 108 (1989): 73-91.

'52 On the historical significance of the conflict between the temple of Artemis and early Christianity, see Richard Oster, "The Ephesian Artemis as an Opponent of Early Christianity," JAC 19 (1977): 24-44.

'53 Witherington, Acts ofthe Apostles, 59 \. 226 NASB).'54 He then mentioned the possibility that Paul's message would lead to complete abandonment of the temple of Artemis (v. 27).155 This threat to the temple spawned a riot'56 which eventually had to be quelled by the city authorities (w.35-41). The brief glimpses of issues of wealth and poverty which the reader fInds in Acts 6:8-19:41 negate the coherent image of the Jerusalem community which the reader developed of the Jerusalem community in Acts 2:1-6:7. The reader's image of the Jerusalem community's orderly and well organized system for caring for the needs of its members is replaced by a series of competing images of individuals and communities with no prominent system of caring for the needs of those within the Christian community. The reader fInds no easily unifIed perspective on issues of wealth and poverty within these accounts of the believers outside of Jerusalem, but rather the reader fInds only brief glimpses of economic issues. Even though these glimpses are brief and not easily merged, the reader fInds two signifIcant trends within the narrative which may negate the normative value of the reader's earlier image of the Jerusalem community. First, although the alleviation of needs (particularly in the forms ofthe offering for Jerusalem, the giving of alms, and sharing of hospitality) continues to be valued within the narrative, the community does not seem to perpetuate the structured system of

IS4 "To be sure, the narrative undennines the validity of the protest from the beginning by having Demetrius reveal his self-interested motives. Demetrius speaks persuasively to the artisans being addressed, appealing to concerns that they are likely to share, but the outside observer sees another instance of the profit motive corrupting religion." Tannehill, Unity, 2: 243. On Demetrius's "blatantly economic motive," see Stoops, "Riot and Assembly," 84. Jewish writers commonly accused craftsmen of having fmancial motives for promoting idol worship. See Talbert, Reading Acts, 78 and Johnson, Acts ofthe Apostles, 353.

ISS This temple provided economic benefits for nearly all of the citizens of Ephesus and thus any threat to the temple was a threat to the economic life of the entire city. See Witherington, Acts of the Apostles, 587.

IS6 Larry J. Kreitzer's "A Numismatic Clue to Acts 19,23-41," JSNT 30 (1987): 59-70, argues that the goddess Artemis (Diana) may have been identified with the empress Agrippina and that this identification may explain the ferocity of the crowd's response to Paul's message. The narrative does not indicate any such identification between the empress and the goddess, but rather emphasizes the economic motives for the riot. 227 caring for the poor which characterized the Jerusalem community. Second, the characterization of Paul, who is emerging as the leading witness in these chapters,IS7 is different than that of the leading witnesses in the Jerusalem community. Paul is less dependent upon the community of believers and seems to rely upon his own social and economic advantages, particularly those provided by his Roman citizenship and his status as an artisan. Only further reading can determine what image or images from the narrative, the image of the early Jerusalem community or the images of the believers outside of Jerusalem, the reader will appropriate as determinative for a consistent reading of issues of wealth and poverty.

Bringing Closure to the Reading (Acts 20: 1-28:31) Up to this point in the reading process the reader has developed a consistent and integral image of the early Christian community in Jerusalem and has then seen that image challenged by a vast array of competing images from Christian believers and communities outside of Jerusalem. As the primary protagonist of the narrative has changed from Peter to Paul, the brief glimpses of believers' economic lives which the reader observes have also taken on a different character. Paul and the believers with whom he interacts appear to inhabit a more diverse and stratified economic system than did the Jerusalem community. The images from outside the Jerusalem community present believers who are less directly financially dependent upon one another than were the members of the Jerusalem community. The ambiguities created both by the presence of these competing images and by the lack of clearly parenetic texts which address issues of wealth and poverty leave the reader with a wide array of potential readings. The final chapters of Acts provide important perspectives which enable the reader

157 On Paul as a "witness" in Acts, see P. Boyd Mather, "Paul in Acts as a 'Servant' and 'Witness,'" BR 30 (1985): 23-44; Marie-Eloise Rosenblatt, Paul the Accused, Zacchaeus Studies (Minneapolis: Liturgical Press, 1995), 1-21; and Philippe H. Menoud, "Jesus and His Witnesses," Jesus Christ and the Faith, 149-66. 228 to determine which of these potential readings are to be actualized and which are not to be actualized.

A) Paul's Farewell (20:1-21 :26) After the tunnoi1 in Ephesus died down, Paul and the narrator resumed their travels. They were moving quickly in order to fulfill Paul's desire to be in Jerusalem by Pentecost (20:1-16).158 Along the way at Miletus, Paul addressed a group of elders, including those from Ephesus (v. 17).159 In this farewell address (vv. 18b_35),160 Paul informed his listeners that they would not see him again (v. 25).161 Paul used the speech to characterize his past ministry (vv. 18b-27) and to warn of problems which would arise after he was gone (vv. 28-32). For the reader interested in issues of wealth and poverty, however, the most important portion of

158 First person narration reappears (20:5) for the first time since its brief appearance after the apostolic council (16:10-17). The narrator either accompanies Paul or meets him at their common destination (cf. 20:13) throughout chapters 20 and 21. Even though Paul remains the focus of the narrative, the narrator describes the journeys in the first person (20:5-15; 21: 1-17).

159 The text ("rrElltVas elS EEaov IlETEKaA€aaTO TOUS 1Tpea~UT€pOUS Tils €KKAT]

160 On Paul's speech as a farewell address, see Duane F. Watson, "Paul's Speech to the Ephesian Elders (Acts 20.17-38): Epideictic Rhetoric of Farewell," Persuasive Artistry (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991), 184-208, especially 185-91; Colin J. Herner, "The Speeches of Acts: 1. The Ephesian Elders at Miletus," TynBul 40 (1989): 77-85, especially 79; Jan Lambrecht, "Paul's Farewell-Address at Miletus (Acts 20, 17-38)," Les Actes des Apotres, ed. J. Kremer (Leuven: University Press, 1979), 307-37; Charles K. Barrett, "Paul's Address to the Ephesian Elders," God's Christ and His People, ed. Jacob Jervell and Wayne A. Meeks (Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 1977),107-21; and Schneider, 2: 299.

161 In order to emphasize the significance of Paul's prediction that this listeners will not see him again (cm OUK€Tt &peaSe TO 1TpoaW1Tov IlOU UIlE1S miVTES, v. 25), the narrator later echoes Paul's words (OTt OUKETl Il€AAOWW TO 1TpoaW1Tov au-roii 8eWpelV, v. 38). On the possibility that this speech has a chiastic structure with verse 25 as its center, see Cheryl Exum and Charles H. Talbert, "The Structure of Paul's Speech to the Ephesian Elders (Acts 20, 18-35)," CBQ 29 (1967): 233-36. Cf. Robert F. O'Toole, "What Role Does Jesus' Saying in Acts 20,35 Play in PaUl's Address to the Ephesian Elders," Bib 75 (1994); 329-49. 229 the speech comes at the end when Paul again characterized his conduct and ministry. He insisted: [33] I have coveted no one's silver, or gold, or clothes; [34) You know that these hands supplied my needs and the needs of those with me. [35) I showed you all that such working was necessary in order to help the weak, to remember the words of the Lord Jesus that he said, 'It is more blessed to give than to receive' (20:33-35).

In the closing of this speech, therefore, the reader discovers the themes of generosity and greedlessness which played such an important role in the reader's understanding of issues of wealth and poverty in the third gospel, particularly from the time of John's first sermon (Luke 3:10-14). The presence of these two themes at this point in the narrative is especially significant because within the external frame of reference of the Greco-Roman world "the 'Farewell Discourse' is in reality a kind of parenetic discourse, in which the main point is the instruction of the listener in certain moral values.,,162 Thus when Paul emphatically denies having coveted anyone's silver, gold or apparel, that is, "the status symbols of his day,"163 he is also thereby urging his listeners likewise to avoid the love of money.l64 Although the reader has not found the call for freedom from covetousness strongly emphasized within Acts up to this point in the narrative,165 Paul's emphatic denial of covetousness at this key

162 Johnson, Acts of the Apostles, 367. Also see Watson, "Paul's Speech," 184-208; William S. Kurz, "Luke 22:14-30 and Greco-Roman and Biblical Farewell Addresses," JSL 104 (1985): 252-68; and Weiser, 2: 579-80.

163 Krodel, 392. On silver, gold, and apparel as the primary measures of personal wealth in the Greco-Roman SOciety, see Watson, "Paul's Speech," 205.

164 On the common topos of avoiding the love of money as it is found within the philosophers of antiquity, see Talbert, Reading Acts, 188.

165 Although covetousness has not been a prominent theme within Acts, Dunn, Acts ofthe Apostles, 275, overstates the case when he asserts: "Coveting, acquisitive desire is a theme which appears nowhere else in Acts." Such desire plays a role in the characterizations of Ananias and Sapphira (5: I-II), of Demetrius and his colleagues (19:24-25), and of Simon the magician (8: 14- 19). 230 point in the narrative 166 reminds the reader of the importance which the theme of covetousness played in the third gospel. Perhaps greedlessness, one of the key themes around which the reader developed closure for a consistent reading of issues of wealth and poverty in the third gospel, will also provide one of the bases for developing closure for a reading of these issues in Acts. The possibility of gaining this closure is greatly enhanced by the presence not only of the theme of freedom from covetousness, but also by the presence of the other key theme around which the reader developed closure for a consistent reading of issues of wealth and poverty in the third gospel, the theme of generosity. Paul insisted that his labor provided the resources which enabled him not only to care for his own needs and the needs of those who traveled with him, but also even enabled him to help the weak Cvv. 34_35).167 Paul worked so that he could be financially independent and generous. As Joharmes Munck explains, Paul "presents himself as an example in his relation to the church and also in his financial independence.,,168 Paul's financial independence and his practice of generosity are so important to him that he quotes the words of Jesus in order to illuminate the motivation for his generosity: "It is more blessed to give than to receive" (v. 35).169

166 Barrett, "Paul's Address," 107, suggests that "it would not be unreasonable to claim that this [speech] is the most important paragraph in Acts."

167 On the importance of understanding verses 34-35 not as a defense of Paul's character (as is sometimes found in his letters), but rather as an example of the importance attached to caring for the needs of the weak, see John J. Kilgallen, "Paul's Speech to the Ephesian Elders," ETL 70 (1994): 112-21; Watson, "Paul's Speech," 191; and Roloff, 412.

168 Munck, Acts of the Apostles, 205. In reality, Paul's intermittent practice of working as a tent maker (18:3) could not have furnished him with sufficient income to support himself and his associates in ministry. As Haenchen, Acts of the Apostles, 594, n. 3, explains, "Paul by his own work could not even keep himself from want, to say nothing of caring for his companions also." Also see Roloff, 412 and Krodel, 392. In terms of the narrative, however, Paul's financial independence, indeed his ability to be generous, is clearly affirmed.

169 Although some readers (e.g., Marshall, Acts of the Apostles, 1NTC, 336 and Witherington, Acts of the Apostles, 626) argue that this saying may well be an authentic saying of Jesus, other readers (e.g., Eckhard PIUmacher, "Eine Thuk)ldides-Reminiszenz in der Apostelgeschichte (Apg 20,33-35-Thuk. II 97, 3f.)," ZNW 83 [1992]: 270-75; Wikenhauser, 231 According to Paul's words in this important farewell speech, therefore, Paul's "willingness to do hand work demonstrates his freedom from the desire for riches and his commitment to contribute to others. ,,170 The reader observes that Paul's conduct embodies the ideals which the reader has found central to a consistent reading of issues of wealth and poverty in the third gospel. Thus, the words of this reliable character, Paul, have, in a parenetic context, reaffirmed the ethic which was introduced by John the Baptist in the third gospel and which was reaffirmed throughout that former treatise. Thus Paul's claims in this speech may provide the themes around which the reader may bring closure to the reading. At the very least, the reader now has heightened expectations about Paul's function as a role model for the economic conduct of believers. Perhaps Paul's example will illustrate how believers are to live. After Paul's farewell speech, he and the narrator continued their journey to Jerusalem, passing through Tyre (21:3). While there, Paul spent time with a group of "disciples" (v. 4), who eventually, along with their wives and children

(auv ")'tJvaL~l Kal TEKVOL~, v. 5), saw him off to his next destination. This farewell event, which Dunn calls "a family occasion,,,171 contains the only reference to literal children within the book of ActS.172 For the reader who is seeking to bring closure to a consistent reading of issues of wealth and poverty in

344; Haenchen, Acts of the Apostles, 594-95, n. 5; and Roloff, 412. Cf. John J. Kilgallen, "Acts 20:35 and Thucydides," JBL 112 [1993]: 312-14 and Evald Lovestam, "Paul's Address at Miletus," ST41 [1987]: 1-10) find parallels in various Greek authors. Although the question ultimately cannot be settled, O'Toole, "What Role?" 331-39, is correct to note that the content (earthly generosity brings eschatological reward) is consistent with the message of Jesus in the canonical gospels, but the form (being both impersonal and relative­ speaking in terms of being more and less blessed) is inconsistent with Jesus' manner of speech in the canonical gospels.

110 Tannehill, Unity, 2: 260.

!11 Dunn, Acts ofthe Apostles, 281.

112 Krodel, 394, correctly distinguishes between this reference to "real children" and other non-literal uses of the term in the third gospel and Acts. 232 Acts, this reference is not "pointless," as Marshall contends. 173 Rather this reference to the disciples' wives and children clearly demonstrates that the "disciples" (l.w6T]TCiL) at this point in the narrative, unlike many ofthe disciples in the third gospel, enjoy normal family relationships. In this part of Acts, the disciples, who are presumed to be male, have wives and children. The separation from normal family relationships, which disciples experienced in the third gospel, is no longer the norm (cf. Luke 18:28-29). This change within the family structure of the disciples is immediately reaffirmed when Paul and the narrator accepted the hospitality of Philip (Acts 21:8-10). Philip, one of the seven (v. 8; cf. 6:5), owns a home and has four unmarried daughters (v. 9).174 Thus not only the nameless "disciples" engage in normal home and family life, but even the second generation of Christian leadership, as symbolized by Philip, engages in normal home and family life. The disciples and second generation leadership of the early church, therefore, clearly do not participate in any ethic of self-impoverishment or disassociation from home and family. The reader is left to wonder if these believers, and, in fact, all subsequent believers, are presumed also to engage in normal social and economic life. Perhaps the sudden appearance of the disciples' children and the sudden reappearance of Philip with a home and daughters allow the reader to infer that the earlier self-imposed social and economic hardships are no longer the norm. Perhaps just as participation in normal family life is now the norm for disciples and community leaders (like Philip), participation in normal economic life is now the clear norm for all believers. This possibility is made increasingly plausible because after leaving Philip's house, Paul receives hospitality from another home-

173 Marshall, Acts of the Apostles, TNTC, 339, claims that this reference serves little purpose within the narrative and was therefore probably added because of its basis in historical events.

174 Krodel, 394, is correct to note that the prophetic activity of Philip's daughters is a fulfillment of the Joel prophecy uttered on Pentecost (Acts 2: 17). 233 owning disciple named Mnason (21:16) before finally arriving in Jerusalem (v. 17). Once in Jerusalem, Paul's loyalty to the law was doubted by Jewish Christian believers and so Paul was asked to demonstrate his loyalty to the law by paying the expenses associated with the fulfillment of the Nazarite vow in which four men were currently participating (vv. 23_24).175 These expenses would have been considerable since each Nazarite was required to offer one male lamb, one female lamb, and one ram as burnt sacrifices and also to offer drink and cereal offerings. 176 In spite of the expense, Paul provided the sacrifices (v. 26). The reader is not given any indication of the source of Paul's economic resources, but his ability to pay these considerable expenses clearly demonstrates that he possessed significant financial resources at this point in the narrative.177 As William Ramsay explains, "whatever be the precise facts, we must regard Paul as a man of some wealth during these years.,,178 Up to this point in the narrative, therefore, the reader has leamed that Paul claims to have lived out an ethic which the reader identifies with the ethic proclaimed by John the Baptist early in the third gospel, an ethic of freedom from greed and of generosity toward the needy. The reader has seen that disciples, and even Christian leaders like the seven, no longer separate themselves from normal

115 The description of the events in Acts is inconsistent with the requirements of a Nazarite vow. Haenchen, Acts of the Apostles, 543, n. 2, is no doubt correct to warn that at his historical distance, "Luke appears to have no exact idea of the Nazarite vow." Also see Conzelmann, Acts of the Apostles, 180; LUdemann, 232; and Marshall, Acts of the Apostles, TNTC,345-46. Cf. Witherington, Acts ofthe Apostles, 649.

176 See Krodel, 403-04 and Wikenhauser, 351.

177 Dunn, Acts of the Apostles, 287-88, is correct to insist that Acts does not indicate that Paul had access to any community resources, including the collection which is discussed in his letters. On the Pauline collection and Acts, also see Haenchen, Acts ofthe Apostles, 612-14.

178 William Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller and Roman Citizen, 3rd ed. (London: Hodder and Stoughten, 1897),312. 234 home and family life and that Paul himself possesses substantial finance resources.

B) Paul on Trial (Acts 21:27-28:31) Upon Paul's arrival in Jerusalem, the prophecy of Agabus (21: 10-11) is quickly fulfilled. The Jews of Jerusalem oppose Paul and bring him under the authority of the Roman courts (21:27-40). Paul begins his prolonged trial process by defending himself before his fellow Jews in Hebrew (21:40b-22:21). Paul's speechl79 was not well received; he was saved from mob violence only by being taken into Roman custody. The Roman commander decided to have him scourged. Rather than be scourged, however, Paul again appealed to his Roman citizenship (22:25). The Roman commander, who had paid a great sum of money for his citizenship,180 was surprised to learn that Paul was a Roman citizen and inquired how Paul received his citizenship (vv. 26-27). Paul claimed to have been born into citizenship (v. 28). The implication of Paul's inherited citizenship may be that he belonged to a family with significant financial resources,181 that is, a family that could afford to acquire citizenship.182 The possibility that Paul had access to family wealth is rendered increasingly plausible both by Paul's subsequent speech before Felix and by

179 On Paul's speeches in Acts 22-26 as forensic defense speeches, see Jerome Neyrey, "The Forensic Defense Speech and Paul's Trial Speeches in Acts 22-26," Luke-Acts, ed. Charles H. Talbert (New York: Crossroad, 1984),210-24 and Fred Veltmann, "The Defense Speeches of Paul in Acts," Perspectives on Luke-Acts, 243-56.

180 Roman citizenship was not literally bought and sold, but rather was technically a gift from the emperor. In a society dominated by the principle of reciprocity, however, one obtained citizenship only by earning the favor of a person who had great political influence. Such favor was normally earned by a large bribe of some sort. See Mark Black, "Paul and Roman Law in Acts," ResQ 24 (1981 ): 209-18.

181 It may be significant that a member of Paul's family, a nephew, appears in the narrative for the first (and only) time in this context (23:16). On the possibility that Paul belonged to a family with considerable wealth and that he inherited wealth at some point during his ministry, see Ramsay, St. Paul, 34-37, 312.

182 Marshall, Acts of the Apostles, TNTC, 359, however, understands the commander's words as an insult to Paul, a complaint that "anybody could become a citizen these days!" 235 Felix's response to that speech. Paul insisted that he had returned to Jerusalem to give alms and offeringsl83 to his nation (24: 17).184 Possibly because of this insistence, or possibly for some other unstated reason(s), Felix apparently believed that Paul had access to significant financial resources because he hoped to obtain a bribe from Paul (24:26) and, as William Ramsay, notes, "a rich Roman official did not look for a small gift.,,185 The combination of this reference to alms and offerings on the one hand and Felix's expectationl86 of a bribe on the other hand leads Luke Johnson to suggest that the author of Acts "knew of Paul's being in possession of considerable funds.,,187 Yet Paul apparently never paid Felix a bribe because when Felix's term in office expired, he left Paul in prison for his successor, Festus, to deal with (24:27). Festus promptly questioned Paul and offered to send him to Jerusalem to stand trial before Jewish authorities. Paul did not want a trial at Jerusalem, however, and appealed to Caesar, demanding a Roman trial (25:9-12). Festus

183 Krodel, 44, is probably correct to assert that "alms" (EAETj~ooUVT) describes gifts which would be given to the poor (among the Jews) and that "offerings" (Tipocr¢opci) describes sacrificial expenses like those associated with the completion of the Nazarite vow.

184 Although many readers (e.g., Schneider, 2: 353 and Dunn, Acts of the Apostles, 316) assume that Acts is speaking about the great collection from the Pauline letters, Haenchen, Acts of the Apostles, 655, wisely advises that "it is only because we know about Paul's great collection from his letters that we recognize an allusion to it here; for Luke's readers that was not possible." Thus the alms and offerings which Paul wishes to give in Acts should not be equated with the great collection in his letters. In Acts, the money appears to come from Paul, and not from his churches.

IS5 Ramsay, St. Paul,311.

IS6 On the pervasiveness of bribes within the Roman justice system in general and specifically Felix's reputation for accepting bribes, see Talbert, Reading Acts, 208; Conzelmann, Acts ofthe Apostles, 20 I; and Munck, Acts ofthe Apostles, 231.

187 Johnson, Acts of the Apostles, 419. Cf. Haenchen, Acts of the Apostles, 661 and Roloff, 545-55. Wikenhauser, 380, suggests that Felix expected the money to come from Paul's friends and fellow believers, but Acts has given no evidence that Paul received any financial assistance (other than hospitality) from his converts or fellow believers. In fact, Paul has already emphasized his [mancial self sufficiency (20:34-35). 236 quickly agreed to Paul's demand for a hearing before Caesar and drafted a brief about Paul's case for Paul to take with him to Rome Cvv. 13-21). The willingness of Festus to send Paul's case directly to Caesar provides the reader with yet another indication of the probability of Paul's high social standing since few cases, and only the most important cases, were ever appealed to Caesar.188 After an eventful trip to Rome to see Caesar, Paul's living arrangements during the last two yearsl89 of the narrativel90 also support the inference that Paul possessed significant economic resources. The narrator informs the reader that Paul carried on his ministry from a rented room l91 for two years while waiting for his Roman trial (28:30). Even though, as a Roman citizen, Paul could have met his nutritional needs by eating his share of the free grain distributed to citizens in Rome,l92 renting such a room in the city of Rome "would have been an expensive

18S Only persons with great personal wealth and social status were able to make direct appeals to Caesar. On PaUl's direct appeal as probable evidence of his wealth and high social status, see John Clayton Lentz, Luke's Portrait of Paul, SNTSMS 77 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 139-53.

189 Paul's two year wait for a trial before Caesar is "neither overly long nor unusual when compared with extra-biblical examples." Rapske, Paul in Roman Custody, 433.

190 The lack of closure at the end of Acts has caused many readers to speculate that the book is either incomplete or was written before Paul's imprisonment ended. For a summary of the most widely held opinions, see Conzelmann, Acts ofthe Apostles, 228. On the highly plausible theory that the ending of Acts is modeled after the deuteronomistic history, see Thomas Romer and Jean-Daniel Maachi, "Luke, Disciple of the Deuteronomistic School," Luke's Literary Achievement, 178-87.

191 Although Ev lSL

192 On Paul's right to grain as a Roman citizen in Rome, see Rapske, Paul in Roman Custody, 242, and Talbert, Reading Acts, 234. 237 proposition.,,193 Again, the reader is not told the source(s) of Paul's considerable financial resources/ 94 but the reader is offered the image of a man with access to large sums ofmoney.195 With even the close of the narrative emphasizing Paul's economic resources, the reader is prompted to reflect upon the significance of this image of Paul in Acts, that is, the image of Paul as a person with significant economic resources at his disposal. The reader notes that Paul is portrayed as an artisan who boasts of his ability to provide financial support for himself and his colleagues and as a Roman citizen who "wore the outward appearance of a man of means, like one in a position to bribe a Roman procurator."I96 Paul is presented as a highly educated person who is at home in the important cities of the Greco­ Roman world and as one who can afford to pay the considerable expenses associated with several men's performance of a Nazarite vow. Paul is thus characterized in many ways as a person of considerable economic means and social status. 197 Yet Paul is also characterized as a reliable character whose economic conduct is both beyond reproach and worthy of emulation. For the reader seeking a consistent reading of issues of wealth and poverty in the third gospel and Acts, Paul's status as a role model is particularly important

193 Talbert, Reading Acts, 233. Rapske, Paul in Roman Custody, 239, explains that renting a room in Rome could tax the resources of even those who were "quite comfortably well off."

194 Some readers (e.g., Krodel, 483, 507 and Dunn, Acts of the Apostles, 356) suggest that the Roman (or other) believers paid for Paul's room, but Acts gives no support for this speculation.

195 "Imprisonment and a long lawsuit are expensive. Now it is clear that Paul during the following four years did not appear before the world as a penniless wanderer, living by the work of his hands. A person in that position will not either in the present day or in the first century be treated with such marked respect as was certainly paid to Paul, at Caesareia, on the voyage and in Rome." Ramsay, St. Paul,310.

196 Ramsay, St. Paul, 311.

197 Neyrey, "Luke's Social Location of Paul," 251-79, argues that the characterization of Paul in Acts closely relates to the "retainer" stratum of Greco-Roman society, a group which served as agents of the governing elite and which was just below the elites in social status. 238 because of where Paul stands in relation to the narrator and the reader. Paul stands in post-apostolic times with the narrator and the reader. From the beginning of the third gospel when the narrator spoke of what was "handed down to us" (1:2), the narrator has stood with the reader in a time subsequent to the events being narrated. The narrator maintained this distinction between the time of the narrative and the time of his writing until after the apostles made their fmal appearance in the narrative (Acts 16:4). While the apostles are active within the narrative, the narrator speaks of events which other persons experienced; as soon as the apostles leave the narrative, the narrator begins to speak in the first person of events which he has experienced. The narrator, who used the preface of each book (Luke 1: 1-4; Acts 1: 1-2) to separate himself and the reader from the time of the events being narrated, entered the narrative (Acts 16:10) immediately after, but only after, the apostles' last appearance. 198 Because the narrator has chosen to enter the narrative as Paul's travel companion at this point, the reader is able to understand that the narrator and Paul stand with the reader in post-apostolic times. Paul,199 who practices and promotes an ethic like that introduced by John the Baptist, continues to conduct his ministry after the apostles (and Barnabas) have dropped from view and becomes the primary witness within these post-apostolic times. Paul, therefore, stands with the reader and becomes the primary role model for the post-apostolic times in which he, the narrator, and the reader live. Thus, the image of Paul as a fmancially independent, hard working, individual, who practices the ethic introduced by John the Baptist, provides a role

198 Paul is called an apostle only one time in Acts (14: 14; cf. 14:4) and then only in conjunction with Barnabas, whose name appears before Paul's name. Regardless of the reason for this one reference to Paul as an apostle, the subsequent need for Paul and Barnabas to "go up to Jerusalem to the apostles" (15:2) demonstrates that Paul and Barnabas were not apostles in the same sense as the twelve. See Philippe H. Menoud, "The Additions to the Twelve Apostles According to the Book of Acts," Jesus Christ and the Faith, 133-48.

199 The opposite point of view is presented by Johnson, Acts of the Apostles, 29, who claims that "the presence of these first person passages seems to have little impact on the development or meaning ofthe story." 239 model for the reader. Just as Paul worked to supply his own needs, those of his colleagues, and those of the weak within the community, the reader must do the same. Just as Paul remained free from the spirit of covetousness, the reader must do the same. By his example, Paul serves as an economic role model for persons in post-apostolic times. 20o

Concluding Reflections Having finished reading the whole of the third gospel and Acts, the reader is now in a position to answer the primary question which was being addressed to these texts: How is the reader's understanding of and behavior related to issues of wealth and poverty affected by having read these texts? After reading the third gospel, the reader concluded that the ethic introduced by John the Baptist, the ethic of freedom from greed and of generosity toward others, was the economic ethic to be gleaned from the third gospel. The two aspects of this ethic were considered to be interrelated because true generosity could only be practiced by persons who were free from the consuming desires of greed. Greedlessness makes generosity possible. In spite of gaining closure around these themes of generosity and greedlessness, the reader continued to face the lingering problem of quantity, that is, the question of the amount of one's possessions one ought to share with those in need. The reader tentatively concluded that the receptive reader of the third gospel would practice a level of generosity which was not limited by his or her own desire to retain or acquire possessions, but was rather limited only by the presence or absence of need. While reading Acts, the reader was confronted with the image of the early Jerusalem community, which was deeply committed to meeting the needs of its

200 Richard I. Pervo's Profit with Delight (philadelphia: Fortress, 1987),81, also regards Paul as a role model for the reader, although Pervo finds a much different ethic being presented, suggesting that "the amount of space in Acts 16-18 devoted to describing Paul's status and friends among the elite, the high character of his teaching and practice, the quality of his followers, and the baseness of his opposition is truly remarkable and must be appreciated. Luke affirms, in a most engaging way, that one can be a Christian and still have social aspirations." 240 members and which created a structured system for addressing those needs. The apostles, who stood at the center of this community, were presented as persons without substantial resources of their own. Although generosity and greedlessness occasionally appeared in Acts, they did not possess the thematic importance accorded to them in the third gospel until they appeared in Paul's farewell speech. After Paul, in that speech, claimed to have lived without covetousness and with personal diligence and generosity, the reader came to see Paul as an economic role model for believers who stood with the narrator and the reader in post-apostolic times. The reader then concluded that the ethic of greedlessness and generosity which was preached by John the Baptist and was reaffirmed throughout the third gospel was, in fact, the ethic practiced by Paul and incumbent upon the reader. Paul's fulfillment of this ethic of greedlessness and generosity, in spite of his apparent high social status and his apparent access to significant financial resources, has also helped the reader to answer the question of quantity which was only tentatively answered after reading the third gospel. The quantity of one's possessions, whether one had comparatively few financial resources as Peter apparently did or whether one had comparatively abundant financial resources as Paul apparently did, is irrelevant to the values system being promoted. The values system, which the reader finds operative in the third gospel and Acts, focuses upon persons, that is, upon one's attitudes toward possessions and toward the needs of others. Greedlessness, the first aspect of this values system, is focused upon one's own person, on one's own attitude toward possessions and wealth. This aspect is internal to one's own person and is unaffected by any other person or external possession. (One could be greedy if one lived alone in a world in which one owned everything.) Both the rich and poor can succumb to greed. Greed is not a function of one's economic status. Rather greed is a character flaw found both in the rich and the poor and is, according to the values system which the reader 241 infers from the third gospel and Acts, equally culpable in both the rich and poor. The reader finds no condemnation of possessions nor even of wealth per se, but rather a condemnation of certain attitudes toward possessions and wealth. Generosity, the second aspect of this values system, is focused upon other persons and their needs. The presence of persons in need determines, more than any other factor, the appropriate use of economic resources. Human need should elicit a response of generosity from all persons who, if they espouse the values system which the reader infers from the third gospel and Acts, are morally obligated to address those needs as their means make possible. Human need is not a condition which should be addressed only by the rich. Rather the presence of persons in need places a moral imperative upon anyone who becomes aware of that need. Of course, as the reader learned from the third gospel, only those persons who have become truly free from greed will be able to practice generosity as envisaged within the third gospel and Acts. In its final chapter, this dissertation will attempt to demonstrate that this reading, particularly the seminal idea of the irrelevance of possession itself for understanding issues of wealth and poverty, is appropriate to the Greco-Roman world.

CHAPTER V

THE GRECO-ROMAN CONTEXT

Introduction In chapters three and four, this dissertation has argued that the third gospel and Acts attach minimal significance to the actual possession of wealth as a factpr within ethical discourse about issues of wealth and poverty. This dissertation has instead argued that the third gospel and Acts are primarily concerned about certain attitudes toward, and certain uses of, wealth (particularly attitudes of greed and acts of generosity). This dissertation will now attempt to demonstrate the appropriateness of its reading by showing that the foundational idea which undergirds its reading of issues of wealth and poverty in the third gospel and Acts (that is, the idea that one's attitude toward wealth, and not one's actual possession of wealth, is the fundamental concern for ethical discourse about issues of wealth and poverty) is appropriate to the social and cultural context of the Greco-Roman world. In this chapter, this dissertation will examine three first and second century Greco-Roman figures whose writings both contain significant amounts of ethical discourse about issues of wealth and poverty and whose writings also attach minimal significance to the actual possession of wealth as a factor within ethical discourse about issues of wealth and poverty. First, this chapter will examine the works of Seneca, a Roman Senator and philosopher. Second, this 244 chapter will examine the works of Philo of Alexandria, a wealthy Jewish leader. Third, this chapter will examine the works of Clement of Alexandria, a Christian theologian. Each of these figures, it will be argued, discusses issues of wealth and poverty within a framework which attaches minimal significance to the actual possession of wealth as a factor within ethical discourse about issues of wealth and poverty. It will be argued that the fundamental concern for each of these figures is one's attitude toward, not one's possession of, wealth.

Seneca Seneca (ca. 4 BCE-65 CE)/ a Roman Senator and Stoic philosopher,2 wrote his major works during the time frame narrated within the book of Acts.3 Although he was active in politics (and thus rhetoric), Seneca devoted much of his energy to teaching philosophy.4 Seneca was extremely rich, probably one of the richest people of his time. 5 His vast personal wealth has often prompted his critics (both ancient and modern) to accuse him of failing to live the life of a true philosopher.6 When faced with charges offailing to live a life consistent with his

I For a helpful introduction to the life and thought of Seneca, see Miriam T. Griffin, "Imago Vitae Suae," Seneca, ed. C. D. N. Costa (Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1974), 1-38. Also see George C. Strem, The Life and Teaching ofLucius Annaeus Seneca (New York: Vantage Press, 1981) and Villy Sorenson, Seneca, tr. W. Glyn Jones (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984.).

2 Seneca was a self-described Stoic who reserved "the right to form an opinion." Vito beat. 2. 2. (All references and quotations within this chapter are taken from the Loeb Classical Library.) On Seneca's place within StOicism, see Miguel Cruz Hernandez, "Los Limites del Estoicismo de Seneca," Actas del Congreso Internacional de Filosofia en Commemmoraci6n de Seneca (Madrid: Libreria Editorial Augustinus, 1966-67), 2: 39-60.

3 Seneca's adoptive brother, Gallio, is mentioned in Acts 18:11-17.

• On Seneca's understanding of himself as a teacher of philosophy, see J. R. G. Wright, "Form and Content in the Moral Essays," Seneca, ed. Costa, 39-69, especially 39-40, and Sorenson, 69-79.

5 See Griffm, "Imago," 31.

6 See Alfred C. Andrews, "Did Seneca Practise the Ethics of his Epistles," Classical Journal 25 (1930): 611-25 and Griffm, "Imago," 31-33. 245 lofty philosophical ideals, Seneca (and his later defenders) could point to Seneca's philosophy to exonerate him from charges ofhypocrisy.7 This section of this dissertation will now demonstrate how the principles of Seneca's philosophy vindicate him from charges of hypocrisy. It will also demonstrate how the principles which guided his discussions of wealth and poverty embody the same idea that the reader found within the third gospel and Acts. In spite of his vast personal wealth, passages can be gleaned from Seneca's writings which appear to castigate the wealthy and to condemn the possession of wealth. For example, in his classic work on the Greco-Roman customs of benefaction and patronage,8 Seneca insisted: Wretched, indeed, is he who can take delight in the huge record of his estate, in his vast tracts of land that need to be tilled by men in chains, in huge herds and flocks that need whole provinces and kingdoms to provide them pasture, and in private palaces that cover more ground than great cities! When he has carefully reviewed all his wealth, in what it is invested and on what it is squandered, and is puffed up with pride, let him compare all that he has with what he still covets, and he is a poor man!9

As a further example, we may consider how Seneca's treatise on the brevity of life chides the "leisured class" and characterizes these people in harsh terms. Seneca described this class as the men who have themselves borne hither and thither in a sedan-chair and a litter, and are punctual at the hours for their rides as if it were unlawful

7 See especially, Griffin, "Imago," 31-32.

• The view of benefaction, which is promoted by Seneca, is essentially that a benefactor should give benefactions to (worthy) persons without any expectation of a return (lest the benefaction become a simple loan). He insists, however, that the beneficiary should feel morally impelled to return the benefit and that the benefactor has the right to accept a return. Seneca's views are adequately summarized by extracting two brief quotations from this extensive treatise on the benefaction: "the one [the giver] should be taught to make no record of the amount, the other [the recipient] to feel indebted for more than the amount" and "in the case of a benefit it is as right to accept a return as it is wrong to demand it" Ben. I. 4. 3; 2. 17. 7.

9 Ben. 10.5-6. 246 to omit them, who are reminded by someone else when they must bathe, when they must swim, when they must dine; so enfeebled are they by the excessive lassitude of a pampered mind that they cannot find out by themselves when they are hungry! ... it seems the part of a man who is very lowly and despicable to know what he is doing. After this imagine that the mimes fabricate many things to make a mock of luxury! In very truth, they pass over more than they invent, and such a multitude of unbelievable vices has come forth in this age, so clever in this one direction, that by now we can charge the mimes with neglect. 1o

Yet even though Seneca claimed to be "possessed by the very greatest love offrugality,,,11 he did not shun the possession of wealth itself. Rather he shunned the vice that could accompany wealth. For Seneca, the ideal human state was to possess a mind free from uncontrolled desires and inappropriate attachments. He explained that the happy man is he who recognizes no good and evil other than a good and evil mind .... [T]he happy life is free, lofty, fearless and steadfast-a mind that is beyond the reach offear, beyond the reach of desire, that counts virtue the only good, baseness the only evil, and all else but a worthless mass of things, which come and go without increasing or diminishing the highest good, and neither subtract any part from the happy life nor add any part to it. 12

In a succinct statement, Seneca insisted that "the things themselves that men desire have a neutml nature, which is neither good nor evil.,,13

10 De brevitate vitae 12. 6-8. For an equally scathing attack upon "luxury," see Ben. 7.9- 10.

II Tranq. I. 5. However, Seneca did not idealize poverty. In Vito beat. (22. 1), he asked the rhetorical question: "Who, however, can doubt that the wise man finds in riches rather than poverty, this ampler material for displaying his powers, since in poverty there is room for only one kind of virtue-not to be bowed down and crushed by it-while in riches moderation and liberality and diligence and orderliness and grandeur all have a wide field?" On Seneca's rejection of poverty, also see Tranq. 8.9.

12 Vito beat. 4. 2-3, emphasis added.

13 Ben. I. 6. 3. 247 On the one hand, Seneca finds the ultimate good in a "freedom from all mental disturbances."14 Seneca characterizes the person who has achieved this state as free, therefore, from the great anxieties that rack the mind, there is nothing which he hopes for or covets, and content with what he has, he does not plunge into what is doubtful. 15

On the other hand, Seneca finds the ultimate evil in "a lack of mental poise."16 Evil and destruction occur when a person's "judgment is hampered by passion.,,17 If Seneca's criticisms of the wealthy and of the leisured class were criticisms of the possession of wealth per se, his thought would be hopelessly self­ contradictory in light of his insistence that good and evil exist only in the human mind. Of course, Seneca's thought is not self-contradictory because one's possession of wealth and the amount of possessions under one's control are not significant ethical concerns for Seneca. Because wealth exists outside of the human mind, it can be neither evil nor good in and of itself For Seneca, "the things which men desire" are not morally and ethically significant in themselves; rather it is a person's desire for those things which is morally and ethically significant. A person's desire for wealth is evil because this desire, like any uncontrolled desire, disturbs one's mind and takes away one's mental poise. The virtuous person understands that neither the possession nor the absence of wealth

14 Ben. 7. 2. 4. Seneca assumes that a person's mind is freed from disturbance when reason is made to rule over the impulses of the passions. For this understanding of human psychology, Seneca is dependent upon the Stoic tradition. Seneca's understanding of human psychology is most clearly presented in Ira and TrCllUJ. On Seneca's appropriation of Stoic psychology, see Josiah B. Gould, "Reason in Seneca," Journal of the History of Philosophy 3 (1965): 13-25, especially 19-22; N. W. Gilbert, "The Concept of the Will in Early Latin Philosophy," Journal of the History of Philosophy 1 (1963): 17-35, especially 26-28; F. H. Sandbach, The Stoics (New York: Norton, 1975); 154-55, 159-60; and C. E. Manning, "The Consolatory Tradition and Seneca's Attitude to the Emotions," Greece and Rome 21 (1974): 71- 81.

15 Ben. 7.2.4.

16 Tranq. 2. 7.

17 Ben. 2. 14. 1. 248 is significant. Thus it is only one's attitude toward the possession or absence of wealth that is significant within ethical discourse about issues of wealth and poverty. Seneca emphasizes the importance of one's attitude toward wealth and poverty by contrasting himself with the foolish person. Seneca insists: In my case, if riches slip away, they will take from me nothing but themselves, while if they leave you, you will be dumbfounded, and you will feel that you have been robbed of your real self, in my eyes riches have a certain place, in yours they have the highest; in fine, I own my I8 riches, yours own YOU.

Then later in the same document, he reiterates that in the eyes of a wise man riches are a slave, in the eyes of fools a master; the wise man grants no importance to riches, to you riches are everything. You accustom yourself to them and cling to them just as if someone had assured you that they would be a lasting possession.I 9

Thus Seneca is quite clear. Ethical judgments about the wealthy and the leisured class are based upon the possessor's attitude toward wealth and not upon the quantity of that one's possessions. When Seneca criticizes the greedy wealthy person, he criticizes the individual's uncontrolled desire for wealth and not the individual's possession of wealth. Thus, greed, avarice, and the uncontrolled desire for possessions become the subjects of stem rebukes in Seneca's writings. For example, he compares greed to a fire, warning that incontinent hope is never satisfied with what is given and, the more we get, the more we covet; and just as the greater the conflagration from which the flame springs, the fiercer and more unbounded is its fury, so

18 Vito beat. 22. 5. As Sorenson, 169, explains, Seneca "argues that the wise man does not show his independence by owning nothing (in which case being wise would not demand a lot, but nothing at all), but by not being owned by anything."

19 Vito beat. 26. I. On the futility of clinging to possessions which are perishable, also see Ben. I. 5. 3. 249 greed becomes much more active when it is employed in accumulating great riches.20

In spite of his warnings that greed (like any uncontrolled desire) feeds upon itself and becomes intensified when a person seeks to overcome it by indulging it,21 Seneca did not naively believe that only the rich were subject to greed. He insisted: You may be sure that the same thing holds for the poor and the rich, that their suffering is just the same; for their money has a fast grip on both, and cannot be tom away without their feeling it. 22

For Seneca, the ideal is to regard possessions as matters of insignificance. The virtuous person will possess a "soul that can scorn all the accidents of fortune, that can rise superior to fears, that does not greedily covet boundless wealth, but has learned to seek its riches from itself.,,23 Seneca holds himself up as an example of this ideal disregard for possessions, insisting: As for me, I shall despise riches alike when I have them and when I have them not, being neither cast down if they shall lie elsewhere, nor puffed if they shall glitter around me.24

The virtuous person is the one "who keeps his hands from another man's property, who is not greedily attached to his own, who is kind to others.,,25

20 Ben. 2. 27. 3. In this passage "hope" fulfills the role normally assigned to "desire." The psychology is the same. For a similar use of "hope," see Tranq. 2. 7.

21 Seneca notes the irony that greed so consumes those who attach themselves to their possessions "that, busied as we are with ever new desires, we turn our eyes, not to what we possess, but to what we seek to possess. To those who are intent upon something they wish to gain all that they have already gained seems worthless." Ben. 3.3. I.

22 Tranq. 8. 3.

2J Ben. 7. 1. 7.

2. Vito beat. 20. 3.

25 Ben. 4. 9. 1. Seneca's kindness to others is, however, limited to the "worthy." See Ben. 1. 1. 1-2. 250 This brief examination of Seneca's writings has demonstrated that Seneca taught that possession itself, even the possession of significant amounts of wealth, is less significant to ethical discourse about issues of wealth and poverty than is one's attitude toward possessions. This dissertation will now attempt to demonstrate that similar ideas may be found in the Jewish writings of Philo of Alexandria and the Christian writings of Clement of Alexandria.

Philo of Alexandria26 Two New Testament scholars, David Mealand and Thomas Schmidt, have led scholarly discussions of Philo's views regarding wealth and poverty.27 Although neither of these scholars has, in my opinion, adequately understood Philo's views, their research provides a useful point of entry into Philo's ethical discourse about issues of wealth and poverty. Mealand initiated dialogue by noting that "[t]he basic puzzle [for Philonic studies] is the discrepancy between his recorded statements and his personal affluence."28 Mealand argued that "Philo was wealthy, yet wrote in praise of poverty" and that Philo, like the Stoic Seneca, "uttered praises of frugality and criticisms ofluxury which were not entirely in accord with their social position.,,29 Although Mealand suggested that Philo's use of varied traditions helps to explain some of the apparent inconsistencies within his thought,30 he insisted that this

26 For a helpful introduction to each of Philo's major writings, see Samuel Sandmel, Philo ofAlexandria: An Introduction (New York: Oxford Press, 1979),29-81.

27 Discussion began with Mealand's "Philo of Alexandria's [sic] Attitude to Riches," ZNW 69 (1978): 258-64 and was continued with Schmidt's reply "Hostility to Wealth in Philo of Alexandria," JSNT 19 (1983): 85-97. Mealand then responded to what he considered to be Schmidt's misunderstanding of both his own position and that of Philo in "The Paradox of Philo's Views on Wealth," JSNT24 (1985): 111-15. Also see F. Gerald Downing, "Philo on Wealth and the Rights of the Poor," JSNT24 (1985): 116-18.

28 Mealand, "Attitude to Riches," 258, emphasis added.

29 Mealand, "Attitude to Riches," 259.

30 Mealand, "Attitude of Riches," 259. 251 fuctor alone "does not wholly explain the major discrepancy between his criticisms of wealth and his personal affluence."3! Although he insisted that Philo's ethical discourse about issues of wealth and poverty is inconsistent with Philo's personal wealth, Mealand suggested that Philo's concern for those in poverty was rooted in his concern for the plight of his fellow Jews. 32 In response to Mealand's argument, Thomas Schmidt sought and found an "observable pattern" to overcome the seeming discrepancy between Philo's criticisms of wealth and his personal affluence. 33 The pattern, which Schmidt discovers, focused upon the will of those possessing wealth. He argued that Philo condemned wealth only when it represented "acquisitiveness that cannot exist side-by-side with virtue." Wealth which was acquired involuntarily (e.g., via inheritance like Philo's) was not condemned.34 Likewise, poverty was extolled as virtuous only when it represented a conscious decision to renounce possessions for the sake of virtue. Schmidt argues that "[t]he involuntary poverty of his fellow Jews scarcely attracts Philo's notice, and hardly relates to this scheme."35 Thus, Mealand argued that a serious inconsistency existed between Philo's supposed condemnation of wealth and his personal affluence/6 but Schmidt argued that Philo's personal affluence was in no way incongruent with his statements about wealth.37 Both agreed that Philo condemned wealth and praised

31 Mealand, "Attitude of Riches," 264.

l2 Mealand, "Attitude of Riches," 260-63.

33 Schmidt, "Hostility," 86, asked: "Does Philo simply contradict himself, does his socio­ economic position at times overcome his philosophical understanding, or is there an observable pattern that accounts for the discrepancies? There is indeed a pattern, and one which deals a death blow to the argument that Philo's hostility reflects sympathy toward underprivileged co­ religionists."

34 Schmidt, "Hostility," 87.

3$ Schmidt, "Hostility," 87.

36 Mealand, "Paradox," 111-12.

37 Schmidt, "Hostility," 86-87. 252 poverty, but Schmidt insisted that Philo praised only voluntary poverty and condemned only the willful acquisition of wealth.38 Both Schmidt and Mealand are wrong, but Schmidt points us in the right direction. There is, indeed, an "observable pattern" which explains the seeming inconsistency between Philo's warnings about the dangers of wealth and his personal affluence, but Schmidt is incorrect in finding the key to this pattern in the will of the possessor. In fact, Schmidt's insistence that Philo "makes voluntary dispossession of wealth a means or way of achieving virtue,,39 is as misleading as Mealand's claim that Philo "constantly commends renunciation.,,40 Both Schmidt and Mealand have taken Philo's remarks about wealth and poverty out of their appropriate context and have, therefore, failed properly to understand the "observable pattern" which unifies Philo's thought regarding wealth and poverty.41 Two facts are not in debate. First, no debate exists on the question of Philo's economic status. Mealand speaks for the whole of Philonic scholarship in saying, "Philo was wealthy. ,,42 Josephus describes Philo as "foremost among his contemporaries at Alexandria both for his family and his wealth.'>43 Philo's brother, Alexander, was wealthy enough both to lend 200,000 drachmas to Herod

38 Schmidt, "Hostility," 87. Therefore, since Philo's personal wealth was inherited (i.e., involuntarily obtained), it was not subject to condemnation.

39 Schmidt, "Hostility," 89-90.

40 Mealand, "Paradox," 111, emphasis added.

41 Schmidt has correctly argued that Philo's remarks do not need to be seen in conflict with his personal affluence, but Schmidt has misidentified the reason why Mealand's paradox is non-existent.

42 Mea\and, "Attitude to Riches," 259.

43 Ant. 20.5.2 (100). Quoted by Mealand, "Attitude to Riches," 258. 253 Agrippa and to cover the temple gates in Jerusalem with gold and silver.44 Philo's possession of great wealth is not a matter of debate. Second, no debate exists on the question of whether or not Philo sometimes does seem to criticize the wealthy and their wealth. His criticism of pagan kings serves as an adequate example of this seeming hostility to wealth. He writes: They are led by strong drink: and good look and by baked meats and savoury dishes and danties produced by cooks and confectioners, to say nothing of their craving for silver and gold and grander ambitions.45

Philo's willingness to criticize the wealthy is not a matter of debate. The points of debate are the basis of Philo's seeming criticisms of wealth and whether these criticisms are, when properly understood, inconsistent with Philo's possession of great personal wealth. This dissertation will now argue that Philo's apparent criticisms of wealth should not be interpreted as criticisms of the possession of wealth itself, but rather as criticisms of the unbridled desire for wealth.46 Thus, for example, although Gaius was wealthy, the primary cause of his guilt was not his possession of wealth, but rather an "unmeasured passion which craves for more than is natural for mankind."47 Also, according to Philo,

44 Mealand, "Attitude to Riches," 258. Both Alexander and his son, Tiberius Julius Alexander, were active in Roman political affairs. This activity is a clear indication of their considerable wealth. Alexander, who remained loyal to Judaism, was alabarch of the entire delta region, while his son, who apostatized from Judaism, became procurator of Judea and eventually prefect of Egypt. Also see Norman Bentwich, Philo-Judaeus ofAlexandria (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1910) on the economic prominence of Philo's family.

4S Prob. 5. 31, emphasis added.

46 For Philo, desire, not wealth, is "the source of all evil" (Virt. 19. 100). Similarly, "[e]very passion [not every possession] is blameworthy" (Spec. 4. 14.79). On the importance of controlling desire for Philo's ethical thought, see Ronald Williamson, Jews in the Hellenistic World: Philo (Cambridge: University Press, 1989),201-19 and Harry Austryn Wolfson, Philo: Foundations ofReligious Philosophy in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1947),2: 225-36.

47 Leg. 25. 162. 254 wars are not caused by money, but rather "are sprung from one source, desire, the desire for money, or glory or pleasure.,,48 In his comments upon the tenth commandment, Philo explains the danger of desire. The last commandment is against covetousness or desire which he [Moses] knew to be a subversive and insidious enemy. For all passions of the soul which stir and shake it out of its proper nature and do not let it continue in sound health are hard to deal with, but desire is hardest of all.49

Several discussions in Philo's writings demonstrate that the possession of wealth (apart from the presence of uncontrolled desire) is not dangerous to virtue. To begin with, Philo, in his enthusiasm for the temple, boasts of the wealth associated with its construction and brags that the porticoes of the temple are "so adorned as to present a very costly appearance."so But given the temple's unique relationship to God, this reference only demonstrates that wealth is not evil. We need further evidence to demonstrate that Philo does not consider personal wealth to be dangerous to virtue, evidence which can be found in Philo's discussion of the affluence of the priests. Philo explains that Jewish priests51 always fare well economically. In fact,

48 Decal. 18. 153. Similarly, Post. 34. 117.

49 Decal. 28. 142. Philo's equation of the Jewish commandment against covetousness with the Stoic notion of the danger of desire and passions (see especially 143-51) is a perfect example of his tendency to merge Greek and Jewish thought in his writings. Philo's commentary on the Jewish scripture assumes the categories of Stoic psychology. On Philo's work as the "first major reconciliation of Jewish revelation and Greek philosophy," see Sandmel, Philo, 118-24.

50 Spec. 1. 13. 71. He later boasts that the temple'S revenues came from "sources which time will never destroy," thus assuring that "the temple will remain secure co-eternal with the whole universe." Spec. 14.76.

51 Philo himself may have come from a priestly family. For a summary of scholarship on the question, see Daniel R. Schwartz, "Philo's Priestly Descent," Nourished with Peace: Studies in Hellenistic Judaism in Memory ofSamuel Sandmel, ed. Frederick E. Greenspan, Earle Hilgert and Burton L. Mack (Chico: Scholars Press, 1984), 155-72. Schwartz argues that Philo did belong to a priestly family. 255 [a]s the nation is very populous, the first-fruits are necessarily also on a lavish scale, so that even the poorest of the priests has so super-abundant a maintenance that he seems exceedingly well-to-do. 52

In this particular case, Philo finds the possession of wealth to be perfectly appropriate and this is not an isolated example. In another discussion, Philo explains that some persons possess tremendous wealth but still maintain a proper relationship to it. He writes: to this day among those who hold high offices of authority there are not a few who possessing accumulated goods in vast numbers and abundant resources, to whom wealth is ceaselessly flowing in as from a perennial fountain, still sometimes betake themselves to the use of such things as we poor people use. 53

In fact, not only does Philo allow for the possibility of possessing wealth and virtue simultaneously, but on at least one occasion he claims that virtue naturally leads to wealth. 54 While discussing rewards and punishments, Philo explains that "those who follow God" will be blessed with "wealth" and "abundance."55 Here, as in his discussion of the priests' wealth, Philo emphasizes

51 Spec. 1. 26. 133. Philo continues by arguing that the priests' possession of "all the means of life in abundance" is "strong evidence that the practice of religion is general and the law carefully observed in all respects." Spec. 1.31. 154. Philo also insists that the temple attendants are well cared for financially, even "after bestowing these great sources of revenue on the priests." See Spec. I. 32. 156.

53 Spec. 2. 5. 20, emphasis added. The possibility of possessing wealth without being overcome by the desire for it is also indicated by Philo's criticism of Flaccus: "Wealth was not with him as it is with some rich men inert matter." Flacc. 18. 148. Philo's understanding of the function of such government officials is also significant. Ideally, they are to promote prosperity and trade. For Philo, "the best and greatest art is the art of government which causes the good deep soil in lowlands and highlands to be tilled, and all the seas to be safely navigated by merchant ships laden with cargoes to effect the exchange of goods which the countries in desire for fellowship render to each other, receiving those which they lack and sending in return those of which they carry a surplus." Leg. 7. 47.

54 Philo expects that "wealth ... necessarily follows [the] peace and settled authority" which virtue promotes. Praem. 17.98.

55 Praem. 17.98-105. In characteristic fashion, Philo points out that this wealth is only for those who "practice frugality and self-restraint" (100). Philo also warned that only a fool would think that every wealthy person was wise. Mut. 15.91. 256 the extent of the wealth, saying that these people will have "abundance and more than abundance."56 His argument is summed up in terms of two overlapping types of "wealth:" For those who possess stored up in Heaven the true wealth whose adornment is wisdom and godliness have also wealth of earthly riches in abundance. 57

Up to this point, my analysis may seem largely to agree with that of Schmidt. His emphasis upon the will of the possessor can be adapted to fit Philo's statements about wealth,ss but it fails to account for the dynamics at work in Philo's statements about poverty because Philo insists that one could voluntarily dispose of all of his or her possessions and still be without virtue due to the lingering presence of the real problem, desire. 59 Philo does not, in contrast to what Schmidt claims, speak very often or very favorably of voluntary self-impoverishment. 6o Consider, for example, the

56 Praem. 17. 100. He continues by claiming that "the multitude of things produced will suffice both for immediate use and enjoyment and to provide a generous swplus for the future, as the new crops ripen over the old and fill up what is lacking in them. Sometimes so vast will be the fertility that no one will take any thought for the harvest that is past but will leave it unhusbanded and unhoarded for all who wish to use it without fear or scruple." Praem. 17. 103.

57 Praem. 17. 104. Philo here, as throughout his writings, assumes that spiritual wealth (i.e., virtue) is far more important than earthly wealth. Compare Fug. 3. 16-17.

58 Schmidt's effort to make the human will the key to Philo's discussion is, I suspect, influenced by his understanding of Christian theology. Whether my suspicion is justified or not, speaking in terms of "desire" is more appropriate to Philo's own philosophical position than is speaking in terms of "will." See especially, Gilbert, "Concept of the Will," 17-35.

59 One should not assume that the dangers of desire were limited to the rich. While commenting on the second commandment against idolatry, Philo argues that one can make an idol out of the procurement of gold and silver. After admonishing the rich about this danger, he speaks to the poor: "And further, all the needy who are possessed by the grievous malady, the desire for money, though they have no wealth of their own on which they may bestow worship as its due, pay awe-struck homage to that of their neighbours, and come at early dawn to the houses of those who have abundance of it as though they were the grandest temples, there to make their prayers and beg for blessing from the masters as though they were gods." Spec. 1. 4. 23-24, emphasis added

6() The only favorable reference to voluntary self-impoverishment in Philo comes in a brief reference to Socrates. In a very idealistic manner, Philo asks, "Can we then still wonder that Socrates and any virtuous persons you like to name have continued to live a life of poverty, never 257 economic themes in Philo's lament over the injustices suffered by his fellow Jews. He regrets that the rich became poor, the well-to-do destitute, suddenly through no fault of their own rendered hearthless and homeless, outcasts and exiles from their own houses, to dwell night and day under the open sky, and sent to their death by the burning heat of the sun or the freezing cold of the night.61

While discussing the same mistreatment of his fellow Jews elsewhere in his writings, Philo even seems to equate impoverishment with evil in his complaint that: A still more grievous evil than the pillaging was the unemployment produced. The tradespeople had lost their stocks, and no one, husbandman, shipman, merchant, artisan, was allowed to practise his usual business. Thus poverty was established in two ways: first, the pillaging, by which in the course of a single day they had become penniless, completely stripped of what they had, and secondly, their inability to make a living from their regular employments.62

The Essenes and Therapeutae, who receive considerable praise from Philo, are often taken as the primary examples of those who follow the ideal of self­ impoverishment/3 but their function as ideal communities has little to do with self-impoverishment. Although the Therapeutae did "abandon their property," Philo only mentioned this fact in order to set up a comparison between the manner having practiced any method of gaining wealth, refusing indeed to take anything from wealthy friends or kings who offered them great gifts, because they considered that there is nothing good or excellent save acquiring virtue, for which they laboured neglecting all the other goods." Prah. 2. 2 I. Although the emphasis upon the importance of seeking virtue over all other goods is typical of Philo, nowhere else does he commend "neglecting all the other goods." Even this reference must be balanced by Philo's condemnation of Democritus's decision to take on a life of self-impoverishment because of what he "did to his own blood-relations, inflicting on them poverty and indigence artificially created, not perhaps with mischievous intent but through lack of foresight and consideration for the interests of the others." Vita 2. 15.

61 Leg. 18. 123.

62 Flacc. 8. 57, emphasis added.

63 Schmidt, "Hostility," 91, argues that Philo's discussion of these groups represents the greatest degree of hostility to wealth which is found in Philo. 258 in which they "divested themselves of their property" and the manner in which some philosophers have done the same thing.64 While the philosophers allowed their lands to fall into disuse, the Therapeutae donated their property to heirs and friends and thus "made good the needs of men, their kinsfolk and friends, and so turned their indigence into affiuence.,,6S Thus, Philo's description of the Therapeutae's divestiture of property teaches about the responsible use of wealth and property, not about the virtue of self-impoverishment! Even after divesting themselves of property the Therapeutae were not completely impoverished for Philo explains that they had adequate (though modest) food, clothing and shelter, even to the point of needing to protect one another from robbers.66 Philo's greatest commendation of these people is not that they have voluntarily impoverished themselves, but rather that "[t]hey lay self­ control to be as it were the foundation of their soul.,,67 Similarly Philo's treatment of the Essene community praises the freedom from the desire for money which accompanies their communal life style.68 These two factors, that the Essenes are "no longer led by passions,,69 and that they lead a communal life, comprise the primary bases for Philo's praise of the community. He explains that their freedom is attested by their life. None of them allows

64 Vita 2. 13-20.

65 Vita 2. 14. Philo asks the rhetorical question: "How much better and more admirable are these who with no less ardour for the study of wisdom preferred magnanimity to negligence and gave away their possessions instead of wasting them, in this way benefiting both others and themselves." Vita 2. 16.

66 Vita 3.21-25.

61 Vita 4. 34.

68 "Some of them labour on the land and others pursue such crafts as co-operate with peace and so benefit themselves and their neighbours. They do not hoard gold and silver or acquire great slices of land because they desire the revenues therefrom, but provide what is needed for the necessary requirements of life." Prob. 11. 76.

69 Prob. 12. 84. 259 himself to have any private property, either house or slave or estate or cattle or any of the other things which are amassed and abundantly procured by wealth, but they put everything together into the public stock and enjoy the benefit of them all in common. 70

Communal living, however, is not praised because it actualizes the ideal of self-impoverishment, because the Essenes, like the Therapeutae, are not portrayed as impoverished. Their common fund "provides food in abundance and anything else which human life requires.,,7! The common fund even provides for the best of medical care and a comfortable retirementY Thus we see that Philo's praise for the Essenes and Therapeutae turns out primarily to be praise for the manner in which they have overcome desire and have provided for the needs of the entire community.73 Although the participants' initial divestiture is recorded and commended, it is less significant to Philo than is the manner in which their present communal lifestyle enables them to overcome uncontrolled passions and desires. 74

70 Hypo. 11.4.

71 Hypo. 11. 10. Similarly Prob. 11. 76.

72 Hypo. II. 13. "And if anyone is sick he is nursed at the common expense and tended with care and thoughtfulness by all. The old men too even if they are childless are treated as parents of a not merely numerous but very filial family and regularly close their life with an exceedingly prosperous and comfortable old age." Prob. 12. 87, emphasis added.

73 Philo speaks of the Essenes having and demonstrating three loves and then explains the manner in which each love is expressed. "Their love ofGod they show by a multitude of proofs, by religious purity constant and unbroken throughout their lives, by abstinence from oaths, by veracity, by their belief that the Godhead is the cause of all good things and nothing bad; their love of virtue, by their freedom from the love of either money or reputation or pleasure, by self­ mastery and endurance, again by frugality, simple living, contentment, humility, respect for law, steadiness and all similar qualities; their love of men by benevolence and sense of equality, and their spirit of fellowship, which defies description ... " Prob. 12.84, emphasis added. This representation of how the Essenes demonstrate their love does not coincide with Schmidt's portrayal of "Philo's ideal as that of a man who voluntarily scorns and leaves his wealth" ("Hostility," 91). The Essenes' abandonment of property does not even make this summary of their virtues.

74 Philo chides those who have abandoned the "business and financial side of a citizen's life" for the wrong reasons and advises most people to "begin, then by getting some exercise and practice in the business of life both private and public." Fug. 4. 33-36. 260 With this consideration of Philo's understanding of the danger and benefits associated with wealth and poverty completed, this dissertation has demonstrated that for Philo the actual possession of wealth was less significant for ethical discourse about issues of wealth and poverty than was one's attitude toward wealth. This dissertation will now attempt to demonstrate that a similar concern for one's attitude toward wealth may be found in the writings of Clement of Alexandria.

Clement of Alexandria

Clement of Alexandria (ca. 150-216 CE)/5 a Christian theologian, 76 wrote a treatise directly addressing issues of wealth and poverty, "The Rich Man's Salvation.'>77 The document is unambiguous in regard to the significance it attaches to one's attitude toward possessions as the primary factor within ethical discourse about issues of wealth and poverty. Clement clearly espouses ideals similar to those found in the writings of Seneca and Philo. Clement begins his treatise by identifying the problem which he seeks to address, the "despair" of the rich. He explains that some, after merely listening in an off-hand way to the Lord's saying, that a camel shall more easily creep though a needle's eye than a rich man into the kingdom of heaven, despair of themselves, feeling that they are not destined to obtain life.78

75 For a brief introduction to the life and thought of Clement of Alexandria, see John Ferguson, Clement ofAlexandria (New York: Twayne Publishers, 1974) and Salvtore R. C. Lilla, Clement ofAlexandria (London: Oxford University Press, 1971).

76 Due to the scarcity of information about Clement's life, we are uncertain whether or not he ever held any ecclesiastical offices, but he traveled widely and was influential within late second and early third century Christianity. See Elizabeth A. Clark, The Aristotelian Contribution to Clement ofAlexandria's Refutation ofGnosticism (New York: Edwin Mellen Press, 1977),89- 94.

77 Quis dives salvetur? ("The Rich Man's Salvation") is one of Clement's more popular and less important writings, but it is still considered an example of his mature thought. See Ferguson, 177.

78 Quis div. 2. 261 He then takes it as his "duty"

to banish from them their unfounded despair and to show, with the necessary exposition of the Lord's oracles, that the inheritance of the kingdom of heaven is not completely cut off from them, if they obey commandments ...79

Clement proceeds with his banishment of despair by establishing the hermeneutical principle that Jesus' words about the camel and the eye of a needle must not be understood "literally, but with due inquiry and intelligence we must search out and master the hidden meaning."so Clement quotes Jesus' most difficult command, "Sell what belongs to thee," and then ponders: And what is this? It is not what some hastily take it to be, a command to fling away the substance that belongs to him and to part with his riches, but to banish from the soul its opinions about riches, its attachment to them, its excessive desire, its morbid excitement over them, its anxious cares, the thorns of our earthly existence which choke out the seed of the true life. SI .

This thesis, that Jesus' command to sell possessions is actually a command to change one's "opinions" about possessions, provides a clear summary of the principle which this chapter has argued was operative within the writings of Seneca and Philo. But whereas Seneca argued for the importance of one's attitude toward wealth within a pagan philosophical context82 and Philo argued for the importance of one's attitude toward wealth within a Jewish (and philosophical) context,83 Clement made this argument within a Christian (and philosophical)

79 Quis div. 3.

80 Quis div. 5.

81 Quis div. 11.

82 On the possibility that Clement's views toward possessions and wealth were directly influenced by Seneca's writings, see Adolf Martin Ritter, "Christentum und Eigentum bei Klemens von Alexandrien auf dem Hintergrund der frUchristlichen 'Armenfrommigkeit' und der Ethik der kaiserzeitlichen Stoa," ZKG 86 (1975): 1-25.

83 On the character of Philo's influence of Clement, see Annewies van den Hoek, Clement of Alexandria and His Use of Philo in the Stromateis (New York: E. J. Brill, 1988) and 262 context. Of course, regardless of the context, the principles being promoted are quite similar. In fact, Clement's arguments are so similar to those of Seneca and the late Stoics that he has been accused of being "Stoic rather than Christian.,,84 Although this accusation almost certainly presumes an overly simplistic distinction between Christian and Stoic ideas,8s Clement is clearly influenced by Stoic thought. s6 After asserting that the gospel command to sell everything should be interpreted as a command to banish certain attitudes toward wealth, Clement defended this assertion by two types of interspersed arguments. First, he argued that one could be impoverished and still be devoid of spiritual life. Clement explained: For it is no great or enviable thing to be simply without riches, apart from the purpose of obtaining life. Why, if this were so, those men who have nothing at all, but are destitute and beg for their daily bread, who lie along the roads in abject poverty, would, though "ignorant" of God and of "God's righteousness," be most blessed and beloved of God and the only possessors of etemal life, by the sole fact of their being utterly without ways and means of livelihood and in want of the smallest necessities. s7

Clement continued by insisting that not only beggars, but even persons who have voluntarily divested themselves of considerable wealth, could be devoid

A. M. Ritter, "Clement of Alexandria and the Problem of Christian Norms," StPatr 18 (1989): 421-39. Cf. Albert C. Outler, "The 'Platonism' of Clement of Alexandria," JR 20 (1940): 238-40.

84 Ferguson, 177.

85 This accusation, of course, assumes that Stoicism and Christianity are mutually exclusive in their views about the importance of desire within ethical discourse about issues of wealth and poverty. This assumption is, I believe, invalid-or at least an overly simplistic dichotomy. On the basis of the reading presented in this dissertation, it would be possible to argue that the third gospel and Acts are "Stoic rather than Christian."

86 On Clement's use of Stoic psychology, see David C. Hunter, "The Language of Desire," Semeia 57 (1992): 95-111; Ferguson, 169-77; and J. A. McGuckin, "Christian Asceticism and the Early School of Alexandria," Monks. Hermits and the Ascetic Tradition, ed. W. J. Sheils (padstow: Ecclesiastical History Society, 1985),25-39.

87 Quis div. 11. 263 of spiritual life. After explaining that the goal of God's "new creation" in a human life is "to strip the soul itself and the will of their lurking passions and utterly to root out and cast away all alien thoughts from the mind,,,s8 Clement asserted: It is possible for a man, after having unburdened himself of his property, to be none the less continually absorbed and occupied in the desire and longing for it. He has given up the use of wealth, but now being in difficulties and at the same time yearning after what he threw away, he endures a double annoyance, the absence of means of support and the presence of regret. 89

For Clement, therefore, as for Seneca and Philo, because the real threat to the human soul is uncontrolled desire-and not the possession of wealth, persons who have divested themselves of all possessions may still be devoid of spiritual life. In a subsequent development of his argument, Clement reiterated his insistence that the greatest threat to the human soul is uncontrolled desire and then insisted that outward things like possessions are matters of indifference, which do not necessarily need to be rejected. Clement warned: He who has cast away his worldly abundance can still be rich in passions even though his substance is gone. For his disposition continues its own activity, choking and stifling the power of reasoning and inflaming him with its inbred desires. It has proved no great gain then for him to be poor in possessions when he is rich in passions. For he has cast away not the worthless things but the indifferent, ... We must reject what is hurtful; but outward things are not injurious.90

Thus Clement asserted that an impoverished (or even self-impoverished) person could be devoid of spiritual life if that one continued to be ruled by

S8 Quis div. 12. For additional information on the happy life in Clement's writings, see Clark, 27-44.

89 Quis div. 12. Clement continues by insisting that self-impoverishment can be counter­ productive to spiritual development because "when a man lacks the necessities of life he cannot possibly fail to be broken in spirit and to neglect the higher things, as he strives to procure these necessities by any means and from any source."

90 Quis div. 15. 264 uncontrolled desires. Although this type of argument offered strong support for his claim that one's attitude toward wealth, and not one's possession of wealth, was the significant factor within ethical discourse about issues of wealth and poverty, he supplemented this type of argument with another type of argument, an argument about the potential good which could be accomplished by the use of possessions. This second type of argument essentially asserted that one could be wealthy and still possess spiritual life. For example, he asked a rhetorical question about how impoverished Christians could give assistance to other persons: How could we feed the hungry and give drink to the thirsty, cover the naked and entertain the homeless, with regard to which deeds He threatens fire and outer darkness to those who have not done them, if each of us were himself already in want of all these things?91

In case this question did not make his case sufficiently clear, Clement continued by pointing out the logical difficulties associated with conflicting divine commands to practice both self-impoverishment and sharing. And if it is not possible to satisfy these needs except with riches, and He were bidding us stand aloof from riches, what else would the Lord be doing than exhorting us to give and also not to give the same things, to feed and not to feed, to receive and to shut out, to share and not to share? But this would be the height ofunreason.92

For Clement, therefore, the gospel's call to generosity precluded the possibility of a gospel call to self-impoverishment. Clement argued that one must not impoverish oneself because one needed to be able to assist those who were in poverty. Ironically, therefore, Clement could conclude that the rich must retain their possessions for the sake of the poor! He declared: We must not then fling away the riches that are of benefit to our neighbors as well as ourselves .... Indeed, they (possessions) lie at hand and are put at our disposal as a sort of material and as instruments to be well used by

91 Qllis div. 13.

92 Qllis div. 13. 265 those who know .... Wealth is too an instrument of this same kind. You can use it rightly; it ministers to righteousness. 93

Having shown that the significant factor in ethical discourse about issues of wealth and poverty is the attitude of the person who possesses (or wishes to possess) economic resources, Clement provides characterizations of the person who does and who does not have a proper attitude toward possessions. Clement explains that he who holds possessions and gold and silver and houses as gifts of God, and from them ministers to the salvation of men for God the giver, and knows that he possesses them for his brothers' sakes rather than his own, and lives superior to the possession of them; who is not the slave of his possessions, and does not carry them about in his soul, nor limit and circumscribe his own life in them, but is ever striving to do some noble and divine deed; and who, if he is fated ever to be deprived of them, is able to bear their loss with a cheerful mind exactly as he bore their abundance-this is the man who is blessed by the Lord and called poor in spirit, a ready inheritor of the kingdom of heaven, not a rich man who cannot obtain life. But he who carries his wealth in his soul, and in place of God's spirit carries in his heart gold or an estate, who is always extending his possession without limit, and is continually on the lookout for more, whose eyes are turned downwards and who is fettered by the snares of the world, who is earth and destined to return to earth-how can he desire and meditate on the kingdom of heaven?94

After making his position quite clear throughout the treatise, Clement concludes by insisting that as to the question before me, I think it has been shown that the promise does not fall short in any respect, because the Saviour has by no means shut out the rich, at any rate so far as their actual riches and investments of property are concerned, nor has He trenched off salvation from them, provided they are able and willing to stoop beneath God's commandments.95

93 Quis div. 14 .

• 4 Quis div. 16.

95 Quis div. 26. Clement's discussion has been characterized as elitist, and he no doubt did write this document for a wealthy audience. See Donald F. Winslow, "Poverty and Riches: An Embarrassment for the Early Church," StPatr 18 (1989): 317-28. 266

In light of this examination of Clement's treatise, "The Rich Man's Salvation," it is exceedingly clear that Clement (like Seneca and Philo) espoused the idea that one's attitude toward wealth, and not one's actual possession of wealth, was the fundamental concern for ethical (and soteriological) discourse about issues of wealth and poverty.

Conclusion Although this chapter of this dissertation has neither proven nor attempted to prove that either the author of the third gospel and Acts or the "Lukan community" espoused the idea that one's attitude toward wealth, and not one's possession of wealth, is the fundamental concern for ethical discourse about issues of wealth and poverty, it has demonstrated that some persons within the Greco­ Roman world did espouse ideas similar to this idea, an idea around which the reader created a consistent reading of the third gospel and Acts. This chapter's examination of Seneca, Philo and Clement has, therefore, demonstrated that this dissertation's reading of issues of wealth and poverty in the third gospel and Acts is appropriate to the Greco-Roman world, that is, some readers within the Greco­ Roman world would likely have reached conclusions about issues of wealth and poverty within the third gospel and Acts which are similar to the conclusions reached in this dissertation. CONCLUSION

This dissertation began by surveying recent scholarship on issues of wealth and poverty in the third gospel and Acts. This survey of scholarship demonstrated that the central concern among critical readers was the inconsistency of the views regarding wealth and poverty within these texts. This dissertation provided several examples of the two reading strategies typically employed by recent critical readers in their attempts to build a consistent reading of issues of wealth in the third gospel and Acts. On the one hand, the most prevalent strategy among these readers involved creating consistency by importing specific extratextual data to supplement and clarify the data found within the Lukan texts. On the other hand, a less prevalent, though well­ developed, reading strategy found consistency within the Lukan texts by appealing to their (supposed) consistency on a symbolic level. Neither of these strategies was deemed satisfactory. The first reading strategy tended to reify specific historical frames of reference which mayor may not have existed within the world and experiences of the presumed readers ("the Lukan community") or the presumed author ("Luke"). Readers who employed the second strategy tended to offer truncated readings of the two volumes, because the views of wealth and poverty in the latter part of Acts could not be reconciled with their symbolic readings. In light of this survey, this dissertation called for a new reading strategy to be used for reading issues of wealth and poverty in the third gospel and Acts, a reading strategy that would avoid reliance upon historically reified frames of 268 reference while offering a consistent reading of both the third gospel and Acts in their entirety. The second chapter of this dissertation sought to develop this alternative strategy for reading issues of wealth and poverty in the third gospel and Acts. This alternative reading strategy drew upon Wolfgang !ser's theories regarding the reading process, theories which seek to explain how readers develop consistency as they proceed sequentially through a narrative. According to Iser's theories, reading is essentially a process of building consistency out of the diverse and conflicting perspectives which are found within a text. Readers build consistency by relating these diverse perspectives to one another. As Iser understands the reading process, readers fmd determinate elements within the text; these determinate elements provide the reader with clear guidance about how a text's diverse perspectives are to be related to one another. Readers are, however, also faced with indeterminate elements. These indeterminate elements provide the reader with no clear guidance about how the text's perspectives are to be related to one another and so they force readers to draw upon their own experience and imagination in order to establish meaningful relationships between the various perspectives. For !ser, therefore, the reading experience is a progressive process in which the reader develops frames of reference, both internal and external to the text, as a means of relating the various individual perspectives within the text to one another. Iser suggested that this process of consistency-building could be slowed down and brought to the level of consciousness for the sake of criticism. In keeping with Iser's suggestion, this dissertation's reading of issues of wealth and poverty in the third gospel and Acts was presented in the categories provided by Iser and was offered for criticism. The competence of this dissertation writer, it was suggested, may be evaluated on the basis of two criteria: credibility and appropriateness. That is, do other contemporary critical readers regard this dissertation's reading as credible (Are the connections suggested in this reading 269 plausible?) and is the reading appropriate to the cultural and economic ideals of the Greco-Roman world (Is it likely that some person or persons within the Greco-Roman world would have reached conclusions similar to those offered in this reading?)? The third chapter of this dissertation presented a consistent reading of issues of wealth and poverty in the third gospel. This chapter argued that the economic norms introduced by John the Baptist (3:10-14), norms requiring generosity toward the needy and freedom from greed, were the norms which the consistent reader would infer from reading the third gospel sequentially. This chapter argued that economic nomenclature was often used for soteriological rather than economic (ethical) purposes and that the most stringent of the third gospel's economic demands were found Vvithin frames of reference which negated their normative claims upon the readers. This chapter suggested that the third gospel's ethical norms regarding issues of wealth and poverty were less concerned with the quantity of one's possessions than they were with one's attitude toward possessions and one's willingness to assist those in need. The fourth chapter of this dissertation argued that the portrait of Paul in the last half of Acts served as a role model for the reader. Paul, who stood with the reader and the implied author in post-apostolic times, embodied the ethic of greedlessness and generosity which John the Baptist had preached. The portrait of Paul as a flnancially independent person with signiflcant flnancial resources also helped to reinforce the idea that the third gospel and Acts were less concerned with the quantity of one's possessions than they were with one's attitude toward possessions and the needs of the poor. It was hoped that the credibility of this reading was established by the manner in which the texts of the third gospel and Acts were handled in the third and fourth chapters, but this dissertation still needed to demonstrate the appropriateness of its reading. The flfth chapter, therefore, sought to demonstrate the appropriateness of this dissertation's reading by examining the works of three 270 Greco-Roman writers: Seneca, Philo of Alexandria and Clement of Alexandria. This chapter demonstrated that each of these persons espoused the idea that the possession of wealth was less important to ethical discourse about issues of wealth and poverty than was one's attitude toward possessions. This idea, which was pivotal to this dissertation's reading of wealth and poverty in the third gospel and Acts, was therefore shown to be appropriate to the Greco-Roman world. 271

APPENDIX

Peter and Paul in the Canonical and Apocryphal Acts This dissertation has emphasized the importance of Paul's character as a role model for the reader seeking to develop a consistent reading of issues of wealth and poverty in the third gospel and Acts. As the first chapter of this dissertation demonstrated, however, the overwhelming tendency among contemporary Lukan scholars has been to confme themselves to the gospel and the early chapters of Acts and thereby to ignore the significance of Paul's character in their investigations of issues of wealth and poverty in the Lukan corpus. In its attempt to move beyond benign neglect of the economic implications of the last 20 chapters of Acts, this dissertation has observed a contrast between the economic characterizations of Peter and of Paul in Acts. On the one hand, Peter participates in the Jerusalem community's highly structured system of caring for the needy within its ranks. Peter is apparently without significant financial resources of his own (3 :6); he never serves as a benefactor in his own right. He does temporarily serve as an agent in charge of distributing the community's benefactions (4:32-35; 5: 1-11), but he soon relinquishes even this role as inconsistent with his apostolic calling (6: 1-6). On the other hand, Paul claims to have supported both himself and his traveling companions (20:34). Whereas Peter, as an apostle, has gifts laid at his feet, Paul was a benefactor in his own right (20:35), not merely an agent in charge of the community's benefactions. Paul, the self-supporting benefactor, who went to Jerusalem in order to give offerings and alms to his people (24: 17), apparently had 272 access to significant financial resources because he could underwrite the considerable costs associated with the fulfillment of a Nazarite vow (21 :23-26), could give Felix reaSOn to hope for a bribe (24:26), and could support himself throughout his two year Roman imprisonment (28:30). This image of Paul as a self-supporting and generous person with a considerable amount of his own money stands in stark contrast to the image of Peter as one who lived within a community which was sustained by the generosity of others and as one who possessed no economic resources of his own. This appendix will now examine the economic characterizations of Peter and of Paul in the second and third century apocryphal Acts l in an attempt to demonstrate that the contrast between the economic characterizations of Peter and of Paul in the canonical Acts was not a consistent feature of early Christian narratives regarding these two individuals. It will also attempt to show how this comparison of the traditions about Peter and Paul in the canonical and apocryphal Acts strengthens this dissertation's claim that the Paul of the canonical Acts stands in a post-apostolic time with the implied author and the reader of the canonical Acts. This appendix will also briefly offer some possible historical explanations for the contrast between Peter and Paul, which exists only in the canonical Acts.

Peter and Paul in the Apocryphal Acts Scholarly work on the apocryphal Acts (AA) is still at a very elementary stage. Until recently, the AA were commonly viewed as popular second and third century novels which were oflittle value for gaining insight into the church of the first one hundred fifty years. This view of the AA was often accompanied by a

I When this appendix refers to the apocryphal Acts, it means the five writings traditionally placed within this category (i.e., The Acts of the Peter, The Acts ofPaul, The Acts of Andrew, The Acts of John and The Acts of Thomas) and the slightly later Acts of Peter and the Twelve Apostles. All references to these documents will be cited from Wilhelm Schneemelcher, ed. New Testament Apocrypha, vol. 2: Writings Relating to the Apostles: Apocalypses and Related Subjects, rev. ed. compo Edgar Hennecke, tr. R. McL. Wilson (Louisville: John Knox, 1992). NTApo hereafter. 273 view which regarded the canonical Acts (CA) as superior to the AA both in theological insight and historical re1iability.2 This simplistic contrast between the AA and CA, and the facile approach to the AA which accompanied it, have been eroded under pressure from more careful and nuanced treatments of the origin, content and genre of the AA.3 Although the questions surrounding both the genre of the AA and the origin of their underlying traditions cannot be answered here, this paper will proceed on the basis of two assumptions about the AA. 1) The genre of AA is close enough to the genre of the CA to allow for some meaningful comparison of content.4

2) The age of the traditions contained within the AA is close enough in time to the traditions contained in the CA to allow for some meaningful comparison of content.s

2 For a traditional comparison between the theological and historical value of the AA and the CA see Bruce M. Metzger, "St. Paul and the Baptized Lion," Princeton Seminary Bulletin 39 (1945): 11-21.

3 On the history of scholarship on the AA, see W. Rordorf, "Terra Incognita: Recent Research on Christian Apocryphal Literature," StPatr 25 (1993): 142-58; Robert F. Stoops, "Apostolic Apocrypha: Where Do We Stand with Schneemelcher's Fifth Edition?" SBLSP, ed. Eugene H. Lovering (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993), 634-41; and F. Stanley Jones, "Principal Orientations on the Relations between the Apocryphal Acts (Acts ofPalll and Acts ofJohn; Acts of Peter and Acts ofJohn)," SBLSP (1993),485-505.

4 No scholarly consensus exists on the genre of the AA, see Gonzalo del Carro, "Los Hechos Ap6crifos de los Ap6stoles: Su Genreo Literario," EstBib 51 (1993): 207-32; Lynne Courter Broughton, "From Pious Legend to Feminist Fantasy: Distinguishing Hagiographical License from Apostolic Practice in the Acts of Paul and Thecla," JR 71 (1991): 362-83; and Virginia Burrus, Chastity as Autonomy, Studies in Women and Religion 33 (Lewiston: Edwin Mellen Press, 1987). Also see Richard 1. Pervo, Profit with Delight: The Literary Genre of the Acts of the Apostles (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987) and David W. Pao, "The Genre of the Acts of Andrew," Apocrypha 6 (1995): 179-202.

S No scholarly consensus exists regarding the relationship between the CA and AA. Most interpreters regard the traditions in the AA either as competing traditions which are roughly contemporary with the traditions in the CA (e.g., Dennis R. MacDonald, The Legend and the Apostle: The Battle for Paul in Siory and Canon [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1983] and "Apocryphal and Canonical Narratives about Paul," Paul and the Legacies ofPaul, ed. William S. Babcock [Dallas: SMU Press, 1990], 55-70) or as fictionalized traditions which seek to extend the traditions in the CA (e.g., Richard Bauckham, "The Acts of Paul as a Sequel to Acts," The Book of Acts in lis Ancient Literary Setting, ed. Bruce W. Winter and Andrew D. Clarke, The Book of Acts in Its First Century Setting [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993], 105-52 and Robert F. Stoops, 274

These assumptions do not presuppose that the AA and the CA are identical in genre or that the traditions behind the various documents originated in the same generation of Christianity, only that the genres are similar and the traditions originated within a few generations of one another.6 This paper will examine the three AA which place particular emphasis upon either Peter or Paul or both. 7

A) The Acts ofPeter Although perhaps as much as one third of The Acts ofPeter (APt) has been lost, enough of the document remains for us to determine how wealth functions in the narrative of this second century documentS and how Peter relates to wealth. Paul's character, on the other hand, appears only briefly in the narrative and the

"Departing to Another Place: The Acts ofPeter and the Canonical Acts of the Apostles," SBLSP, ed. Eugene H. Lovering [Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1994], 390-404), or as marginalized traditions which are significantly later than the traditions in the CA (e.g., Donald Guthrie, "Acts and Epistles in Apocryphal Writings," Apostolic History and the Gospel, ed. W. Ward Gasque and Ralph P. Martin [Paternoster: Exter, 1970], 328-45).

6 In reality, both the CA and the AA probably contain traditions from different and overlapping generations of Christians. The situation which Jacob Jervell envisages behind the CA, I also envisage behind the AA. He explains that "there is nothing which justly can be called tradition in the first Christian century. What we have are traditions, various, manifold, and many­ sided. Is the word tradition in the singular at all useful and meaningful when talking about the Paul of Acts? Luke's problem was the incessant, ever-growing crop of sayings, rumors, gossip, apologetic, polemic, veneration, admiration, declaration of aversion, etc., from Paul's foes and friends, and from Paul himself." The Unknown Paul: Essays in Luke-Acts and Early Christianity (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1992),69, emphasis Jervel!'s. Also see Christine M. Thomas, "Word and Deed: The Acts ofPeter and Orality," Apocrypha 3 (1992): 125-64.

7 This appendix will examine only The Acts of Paul, The Acts of Peter and The Acts of Peter and the Twelve Apostles, because only these apocryphal Acts contain more than a passing reference to Peter or Paul or both. (Paul does not appear in The Acts ofJohn, The Acts ofAndrew and The Acts of Thomas, and Peter appears only in the "disciple lists" of these other AA.)

8 According to the Stichometry of Nicephorus, APt originally consisted of 2750 lines (about 150 lines longer than the third gospel, the longest NT book). About one third of the APt is now lost. Tertullian's late second century reference to APt indicates that the book was written before 190 CEo See NTApo, 2: 271-83. 275 financial status of his character is scarcely developed. This paper will, therefore, focus most closely on the economic issues associated with Peter and his converts. A recurring pattern is found in which Peter's converts are wealthy persons who make generous gifts to the community upon their conversion. Peter, who produces converts via preaching sermons and working miracles, serves as the agent who relays his converts' gifts to the community. Much of the document relates the story of an extended contest between Peter and a magician named Simon. When Peter first encounters him, Simon is residing at the home of Marcellus, a Roman Senator who had recently turned from the Christian faith under Simon's influence.9 Marcellus's apostasy is described to Peter in largely economic terms: And they [the Christian community] said, 'Believe us, brother Peter; no one was so wise among men as this Marcellus. All the widows who hoped in Christ found refuge with him; all the orphans were fed by him. And what more, brother? All the poor called Marcellus their patron, and his house was called (the house) of pilgrims and of the poor.... We have this in view, brother Peter, and warn you that all that man's great charity has turned to blasphemy ... This Marcellus is now enraged and repents of his good deeds, and says, 'All this wealth I have spent in all this time, vainly believing that I paid it for the knowledge of God.' 10

In the course of the narrative, Peter empowers a dog to pronounce an audible rebuke against the demonic Simon. This "great and marvelous wonder" prompts Marcellus to throw himself down at Peter's feet in repentancell and to

9 On the possibility that the dispute between Simon Magus and Peter reflects a christological debate within the Christian community, see Roman Hanig, "Simon Magus in Petrusakten und die Theodotianer," StPatr 31 (1997): 112-20.

10 NTApo, 2: 294-95.

II The function of miracles in the AA has received considerable attention among scholars. Ramsay MacMullen has argued that the reports of miracles (particularly exorcisms) were an extremely important means of establishing converts in early Christianity. He argued that the AA often credit miracles with being the source of conversions. See "Two Types of Conversion to Early Christianity," VC 37 (1983): 174-92; Christianizing the Roman Empire (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1984), 25-30, 60-61; and Paganism in the Roman Empire (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1981),95. Also see Paul J. Achtemeier, "Jesus and the Disciples as Miracle Workers in the Apocryphal New Testament," Aspects of Religious Propaganda in 276 place his "whole fortune" at the community's disposal. I2 Marcellus followed up on his commitment to care for the community's needs by providing a piece of gold for everyone in the Roman Christian community,13 by housing the community's widows in his own home,14 and by providing for Peter's burial expenses. 15 Peter's second Roman convert,16 Eubula, fits the same pattern of miracle, conversion and generous benefaction. Eubula is introduced as "a woman of some distinction in this world, who possessed much gold and pearls of no little value. ,,17 Her victimization at the thieving hands of the sorcerous Simon served as the occasion for Peter's performance of another faith awakening miracle. IS Peter had

Judaism and Early Christianity, ed. E. Schussler Fiorenza (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1976), 171-72; Julian V. Hills, "Tradition, Redaction, and Intertextuality: Miracle Lists in the Apocryphal Acts as a Test Case," SELSP, ed. David J. Lull (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990),375-90; and Eugene V. Gallagher, "Conversion and Salvation in the Apocryphal Acts," SecCent 8 (1991): 13-29.

12 NTApo, 2: 296-97. Marcellus temporarily wavered in his faith when a statue of Caesar was disfigured, but its miraculous restoration by Marcellus's own hand (under Peter's direction) shored up his wavering faith. The episode closed with an affirmation of the sincerity of Marcellus's faith. "Marcellus also was uplifted in his spirit, because this first miracle was done by his hands; and he therefore believed with his whole heart in the name of Jesus Christ the Son of God."

13 NTApo, 2: 303.

14 NTApo, 2: 311.

15 NTApo, 2: 316.

16 Two conversions occur in APt before Peter arrives in Rome. The first, the conversion of a "rich man named Ptolemeaus," is only partially preserved. In the extant text, we learn that upon his death Ptolemeaus bequeathed a piece of land to Peter, who sold it and "gave all the money to the poor." In the second account, a ship captain named Theon, is converted after having heard a miraculous voice from heaven. Subsequent to his conversion and baptism, Theon sold the ship's cargo and followed Peter to Rome. The text is ambiguous, but seems to imply that the proceeds from sale of the ship were placed at Peter's disposal. ("Theon for his part handed over all his ship's cargo to be sold for its fair price [German: to those who came as buyers] and followed Peter to Rome ... ") The pattern of miracle, conversion, and benefaction, although less prominent, appears in these accounts also. See NTApo, 2: 286, 291-93.

11 NTApo, 2: 300.

18 Upon learning of Eubula's loss of property to Simon's thievery, Peter explains that "this event will cause many to believe in the name of the Lord." NTApo, 2: 301. 277 a vision which enabled him to identifY Simon's accomplices, who then helped Peter and Eubula to capture Simon and recover the stolen property.19 The story closes with an account of Eubula's benefaction: But Eubula having recovered all her property gave it for the care of the poor; she believed in the Lord Jesus Christ and was strengthened (in the faith); and despising and renouncing this world she gave (alms) to the widows and orphans and clothed the poor ...20

The narratives concerning Peter's third and fourth Roman converts, a nameless 'widow and her son, Nicostratus, also fit into this pattern of miracle, conversion, and generosity. Nicostratus, who was killed by Simon as a demonstration of his miraculous powers, was raised from the dead by Peter. After Nicostratus's restoration to life, he and his widowed mother sought out Peter at the home of Marcellus where both the widow and her son each made generous gifts to the Christian community. The widow came to Marcellus' house bringing Peter two thousand pieces of gold and saying to Peter, 'Divide these among the virgins of Christ who serve him.' But when the boy who had risen from the dead saw that he had given nothing to anyone, he went home and opened the chest and himself brought four thousand gold pieces, saying to Peter, 'Look, I myself, who am restored to life, am bringing a double offering, and (present) myself as a speaking sacrifice to God from this day on.'21

Thus the pattern of miracle, conversion and benefaction appears in the first four conversions in Peter's Roman ministry according to APt. The final story in which finance plays a prominent role records no miracle or clear statements about

19 NTApo, 2: 300-02.

20 NTApo, 2: 302.

21 NTApo, 2: 311. Earlier, as soon as the boy was raised, the mother had given the money set aside for the boy's funeral expenses to Peter for distribution to widows (310). The 2,000 pieces of gold donated in this account were added to the widow's earlier gift. The widow's generosity and access to considerable wealth are in apparent contradiction to the basis of her original appeal for Peter to raise her son. She claimed that his income was her only source of livelihood, explaining that "1 had only one son; he provided my food with his hands ... " (307). 278 conversion. Peter is given 10,000 pieces of gold by "a very wealthy woman who bore the name Chryse (the golden), because every utensil of hers was made of gold."22 Upon learning of the gift, some of those present urged Peter to return the money because of the woman's reputation for fornication. But Peter, when he heard this, laughed and said to the brethren, '1 do not know what this woman is as regards her usual way of life; but in taking this money I did not take it without reason; for she was bringing it as a debtor to Christ, and is giving it to Christ's servants; for he himself has provided for them. ,23

Robert Stoops has argued that this passage is key to understanding APt's attempt to redefme patronage.24 He argues that APt encourages the Christian community to accept the benefactions of wealthy persons on the fringe of the Christian community but without granting the donors the honor which was normally accorded to persons who provided such generous benefactions in the Greco-Roman world. The honor for any benefaction belonged to Christ alone who was the community's true benefactor. 25 Even though Stoops is correct to note the christo logical reinterpretation of patronage, this reinterpretation does not negate the emphasis which APt places upon benefactions as an important source of support for the community. To summarize, in APt, Peter's characterization in regard to finance is similar to that in the CA. (1) Peter generates converts (and other sympathetic parties) via his preaching and rniracles/6 these converts (and sympathetic parties)

22 NTApo, 2: 311.

22 NTApo, 2: 311-12.

24 See "Patronage in the Acts of Peter," Semeia 38 (1986): 91-100 and "Christ as Patron in the Acts ofPeter," Semeia 56 (1992): 143-57.

25 "Peter offers the wealthy a chance to become true patrons by putting their money to working the right way. But as we shall see, Peter denies patrons the honor and loyalty they might have expected to receive in return for their gifts. Honor is due Christ alone. No donor becomes a leader in the community." Stoops, "Patronage," 95.

26 Although the role of miracles is emphasized more strongly in the AA than in the CA, miracles serve to inspire faith in the CA also (e.g., 9:32-35). JervelJ, Unknown Paul, 86, argues 279 then supply the community's needs via generous gifts. (2) Peter personally receives some of the gifts, but the gifts are destined for the needy within the community. Peter serves only as a broker. (3) Peter does not have any economic resources of his own?7 Yet, in contrast to the CA, Peter does not specifically renounce his role as broker of the community's resources. In regard to Paul, we learn only that the Christian community provided him with the provisions which he required for his sea voyage when leaving Rome, a portrayal which contradicts the portrayal of a financially independent Paul in the CA.28

B) The Acts ofPaul The Acts of Paul (AP!), like APt, was probably composed in the late second century using traditions of various ages, traditions which included APt.29 The text, which may originally have been nearly 25 percent longer than CA, has been only partially preserved and the original order of the text is merely conjectura1.30 Yet in spite of the text's fragmentary condition, its characterization of Paul's financial status is quite clear.

that preaching of the word and perfonning of miracles "cannot be separated" as the means of inspiring conversions in the CA.

21 When Peter boarded the ship which would bear him to Rome, he embarked without provisions. The captain, Theon, offered to supply Peter's needs, but Peter refused, preferring to fast. Peter accepted food from Theon only after Theon had been baptized. See NTApo, 2: 291-92.

2. When Paul left Rome, APt tells us that the Christian community "prayed together with Paul and brought him gifts and put on the ship whatever he needed." See NTApo, 2: 289.

29 It is widely agreed that API used traditions from APt. On the literary relationships between the AA, see Jones, "Principal Orientations," 485-505; Dennis R. MacDonald, "The Acts ofPaul and The Acts ofJohn: Which Came First?" SBLSP (1993), 506-10; "The Acts ofPeter and The Acts ofJohn: Which Came First?" SBLSP (1993), 623-26; and Judith B. Perkins, "The Acts of Peter as lntertext," SBLSP (1993), 627-33.

30 See NTApo, 2: 213-37. The authorship of API has traditionally been traced to an Asian presbyter whom Tertullian (de Baptismo 17) claims wrote the document "out of love for Paul." This view has been called into question, but a late second century date of authorship is generally accepted, as is the assumption that the author compiled existing traditions. On the connection between API and Tertullian, see Stevan L. Davies, "Women, Tertullian and the Acts of Paul," Semeia 38 (1986): 139-43 and A. Souter, "The 'Acta Pauli' etc. in TertulIian," JTS 25 (1924): 292. 280 Paul is poor, completely without monetary resources. At one point, he is forced to sell his coat in order to purchase food. 31 Not only is Paul impoverished, but he also consistently preaches against the dangers of wealth. He berates those who have been "led astray and enslaved < . . .> by gold < . . . > silver and precious stones,,32 and warns Caesar that "neither riches nor the splendour of this present life will save thee.'>33 In another fragment, the reader learns that " world is nothing, gold is , all possessions are nothing.',34 The negative characterization of wealth is reinforced when Demas and Hermogenes betray Paul to the wealthy Thamyris who has promised them "much money.,,35 API's characterization of Paul and his message regarding wealth is hardly surprising given the highly ascetic tone of the entire document. Paul is frequently found fasting, sometimes for two or three or even "many days" at a time.36 The most striking evidence of APi's ascetic concerns, however, is not the frequent fasting but rather the constant appeal for sexual abstinence. The content of Paul's message is summarized in a variety of formulas, but the theme of sexual

31 NTApo, 2: 243.

32 NTApo, 2: 251. Paul lists enslavement to money along with enslavement to adultery and drunkenness.

33 NTApo, 2: 261.

3. NTApo, 2: 248. Although the fragmentary state of the text makes it difficult to determine the speaker, it appears that the speaker is Hermippus, Paul's persecutor turned disciple. These statements appear to sum up the new outlook which Hermippus adopted as a Christian. The statements are entirely consistent with the ascetic views of API.

3S NTApo, 2: 241. Bribery occurs on two other occasions in API. First, one of Paul's guards accepts a bribe from Thecla so that she may visit Paul in prison. Second, Paul is offered a bribe to cease instructing Thecla. Of course, Paul does not accept the bribe. See NTApo, 2: 242- 43.

36 See NTApo, 2: 243, 249, 256, 257, 258. At one point, Paul fell asleep because he was "fatigued by the fastings and the night watches with the brethren." 281 abstinence is consistently included in these summaries.37 Paul is said to speak "the word of God concerning continence and the resurrection," to preach that one should "fear one single God only, and live chastely," and is accused of teaching that maidens should not marry.38 To summarize, API portrays Paul as impoverished and hostile toward wealth.39 Although this hostility is part of a larger ascetic concern, API's characterization of Paul as impoverished and hostile toward wealth is not consistent with the CA.

C) The Acts ofPeter and the Twelve Apostles The Acts of Peter and the Twelve Apostles (APt]2), unlike the APt and API, has no external evidence for its existence. The single copy which we possess of this brief document is a Coptic translation from an original Greek version and is preserved in a codex that was manufactured in the fourth century. The document itself is, however, generally regarded as a second or third century creation.40 The narrative has merged preexisting Jewish traditions about an angel named Lithargoel, a mysterious physician, with Christian traditions about Jesus and the apostles.41

37 On the relationship between the theme of continence in API and in Paul's letters, see W. Edward Glenny, "I Corinthians 7:29-31 and the Teaching of Continence in the Acts of Paul and Thecla," GTJ 11 (1990): 53-70.

38 NTApo, 2: 239, 240, 241.

39 On Paul's message in API, see E. Margaret Howe, "Interpretations of Paul in The Acts of Paul and Thecla," Pauline Studies, ed. Donald A. Hagner and Murray J. Harris (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980),35-40.

40 "We ought by all means to reckon with the possibility that ActPt [Acts ofPeter and the Twelve Apostles] could already have come into being in the 2"d century." Schenke, NTApo, 2: 414.

4\ Schenke, NTApo, 2: 417-18, argues that the document was created by the merger of three different kinds of texts: (l) "the legendary narrative of a marvelous voyage by Peter and the other apostles, which brings them out of time and space to an imaginary small island;" (2) "the description of a vision (by Peter?) of the appearance of a mysterious pearl-merchant named Lithargoel in a strange city, and the reaction of the rich and poor to his offer;" and (3) "an Easter and Pentecost story ... where the eleven disciples under Peter's leadership were to meet the risen 282 In its present form, APt12's characterization of the rich and poor is quite clear. The rich, in their arrogance, rejected the gift which the pearl merchant (Lithargoel=Jesust2 offered. The poor, in their humility, were freely given the pearl-much to their surprise.43 Only the poor can receive the pearl (i.e., "power to heal the sicknesses of the heart,,}.44 Poverty is a prerequisite for accepting the free gift. When Lithargoel directs the disciples to the city where they may acquire the gift, he warns: "No one is able to go on that way ifhe does not renounce all his possessions and fast daily from one night's lodging to the next."45 After the doctor has revealed himself to be Jesus, he instructs the disciples to supply the needs of the poor. These instructions prompt Peter's protest: Lord, you have taught us to renounce the world and all that is in it. We have abandoned them for your sake. The food for a single day is what we are concerned about. Where shall we be able to find what is needful, which you ask us to give to the poor't6

Jesus." Although this reconstruction is plausible, it is difficult to know if the document was created by the merger of different texts, or merely by the merger of different oral traditions.

42 The protagonist's character is progressively revealed. He begins as a nameless pearl merchant who eventually reveals himself to be Lithargoel. He then takes on the form of a physician with a medical pouch. Finally, he reveals himself to be Jesus Christ.

43 The rich were uninterested in the pearl; the poor assumed that they would not be able to afford to purchase it, reasoning that "since we are beggars, we also know that nobody gives a pearl to a beggar, but it is bread and money that are wont to receive." See NTApo, 2: 421,424.

44 NTApo, 2: 424. The text never explicitly identifies what the pearl symbolizes, but the pearl is replaced by a medical pouch in the narrative and the medical pouch symbolizes the "power to heal the sicknesses of the heart."

45 NTApo, 2: 421-22. Lithargoel warns against carrying bread, a costly garment, water, meat, or vegetables on the trip.

46 NTApo, 2: 423. This pericope and the one that follows have the greatest claim to being specifically Christian traditions without any preexisting Jewish basis. Both the characters and the subject are familiar from Christian tradition. In this pericope, the characters are "Peter" and the "Lord" and the subject is voluntary poverty. In the subsequent pericope, the reference to the "churches" indicates a specifically Christian tradition. 283 Peter's protest, based upon his literal poverty, provided Jesus with an opportunity to remind Peter that the disciples alleviate spiritual poverty by dispersing "the wisdom of God [which is] worth more than gold and silver and precious stones."47 Whereas poverty serves as the prerequisite for receiving the things of true worth in APt12, the possession of wealth is sufficient reason for exclusion from the church. Jesus explained that the rich men of this city, those who did not even think it necessary to ask me who I am, but rejoiced in their riches and arrogance-with such as these do not eat with them in their houses, neither have fellowship with them at all, [and so it will] not befall you to show partiality to them; for many have (already) shown partiality to the rich! For (where there are rich people) in the churches, they sin themselves and also lead others astray into sinning.48

Thus, according to APt] 2, Peter and the apostles are, as in the CA, personally impoverished, but such impoverishment is, unlike the CA, a precondition for accepting the Christian message. Also, unlike the CA, Peter never serves as a broker of the community's financial resources, because the brokership of fmancial resources is regarded as inconsistent with Peter's calling. Like the CA, however, Peter's primary calling is to serve as an agent in charge of dispersing the community's spiritual resources. To summarize, APt12's insistence upon both Peter's poverty and the apostles' concern with matters of primary importance (i.e., dispersing the word of God) are consistent with the CA even if the intensity of APt12's hostility toward those who possess financial resources is inconsistent with the traditions in the CA.

D) Summary In all three of the AA Peter is portrayed as lacking financial resources of his own. In this respect, the AA both agree among themselves and are consistent with the CA. The AA do, however, differ in their portrayal of Peter's relationship

47 NTApo, 2: 423.

48 NTApo, 2: 424. 284 to community resources. On the one hand, APt consistently characterizes Peter as the generator of extensive revenue via his converts' gifts to the community and often characterizes him as the broker who distributes that revenue to needy individuals within the community. Thus APt could be viewed as representing an accelerated version of the traditions contained in chapters 2 and 4 of the CA, where Peter and the apostles serve as brokers who distribute the benefactions from the community's patrons to the needy-although on a less grandiose scale than in APt. On the other hand, APt12 characterizes Peter as one who avoids all involvement with economic resources because of his unique calling. Peter's role within the community, according to APti2, is to provide for the community's spiritual needs, a ministry which completely overwhelms any concern for a ministry of providing for physical needs. This characterization of Peter's role within the community could be understood as an accelerated version of the CA's traditions regarding Peter's lack of money and abundance of spiritual resources (3:1-10) and regarding his insistence that an apostle's primary responsibility was not to serve physical needs but rather to preach the word (6: 1-6). For his part, Paul is characterized as impoverished in the two AA in which he appears and is even portrayed as being dependent upon the community for support in APt. Paul does not possess sufficient resources to be financially independent in the AA. Thus the portrayal of an impoverished Paul in the AA is not consistent with the portrayal of a financially independent Paul in the CA. The portrayal of Paul's financial status in the AA is closer to the CA's portrayal of Peter's financial status than to the portrayal of Paul's financial status.49 This tendency of the AA to portray both Peter and Paul as lacking any independent economic resources (in spite of the AA's occasional willingness to portray other Christian believers as possessing such resources) raises an interesting question: What is the significance of the CA's general agreement with

49 In this regard, the AA are also closer to the portrayal of Paul which is found in his letters than is the CA. 285 the AA's characterization of Peter as economically impoverished on the one hand and its general disagreement with the traditions preserved in the AA about Paul's economic characterization on the other hand? This appendix will now briefly attempt to answer this question.

Revisiting Peter and Paul in the CA One possible answer to this question (Le., why the CA agrees with the AA in its characterization of Peter and disagrees with the AA in its characterization of Paul) may be found in the temporal location of the implied author of CA. This dissertation has noted the importance of understanding that the narrator of the third gospel and Acts stands removed in time from the events which are narrated until-but only until-after Paul's "Macedonian call" (16:6- 10) where the narrator begins to participate with the events which he narrates (l6:10fi). This dissertation has shown that the narrator's entry into the story at this point in the narrative is significant because the "apostolic conference" marks a generational change within the Christian community. Thus the apostles (and Barnabas) fall completely out of the narrative after sanctioning the Gentile mission in the "apostolic conference" of Acts 15 and the narrator begins experiencing the narrative immediately after the "apostolic conference," while the news of the apostles' final decision (the "apostolic decree" of Acts 15:23-29) was being disseminated to the Christian communities. The apostles, the protagonists of the first half of Acts, are mentioned 30 times before the implied author introduces himself into the narrative, but they are never mentioned again after the narrator enters the narrative. In this manner, therefore, the implied author separates himself from the time of the apostles and places himself with Paul in post-apostolic times. 50

so In the AA, the narrators never participate in the narrative. The narrators cannot participate in the events because both Peter and Paul stand in the distant past, in apostolic times. In the AA, unlike the CA, Paul is an apostle in the same manner as the twelve. Thus, in his speech to Peter in APt, Marcellus explained to Peter what he had learned from "Paul, your fellow- 286 The fact that history, from the implied author's point of view, turns a page after the "apostolic conference" explains the perplexing incongruity between the characterizations of the financial status of Peter and Paul in the CA. "Back then," in the time of the apostles (including Peter), things were different. Poverty, vocational abandonment, and dependence upon the community were the norm then. "But now," in the time of the implied author (and Paul), the temporary stringencies of apostolic times are past. The reader, who stands with Paul and the implied author in post-apostolic times, should imitate the hard working, financially independent and generous Paul. The time of apostles is gone and the economic norms of their time and calling are also past.

Conclusion In this dissertation and appendix, I have argued that the financial characteristics of Peter and of Paul are different in the CA. Peter is characterized without any fmancial resources of his own, and Paul is characterized with significant financial resources of his own. In this appendix, I have further argued that this distinction between the financial status of Peter and of Paul is not maintained in the AA even though the other traditions regarding the finances of Peter can be interpreted as accelerated versions of the traditions in the CA. I have suggested that the reason for the CA's unique characterization of Paul's financial status was due to the fact that the implied author understood himself and Paul to stand in post-apostolic times and that the CA's characterization of Paul's financial life was presented in a manner consistent with the expectations of how believers were to conduct themselves in post-apostolic times. Finally, I would also suggest the possibilities that: (1) Luke, the real author of the third gospel and Acts, was aware of growing traditions on two sides. Luke may have been aware of traditions which were developing with tendencies apostle." NTApo, 2: 286. Similarly, in API, Paul's teaching is regarded as apostolic. See NTApo, 2: 254-55. 287 to treat extreme asceticism as an ethical ideal (like the traditions preserved in API and APtl2) on the one hand and with tendencies to give preferential treatment to the wealthy as potential community benefactors (like the traditions preserved in APt) on the other hand. (2) Luke may have deliberately incorporated some of these developing traditions into his two volumes (e.g., Luke 5: 1-11; 9: 1-6; 10: 1- 12; 18:18-30; Acts 2:44-45; 3:1-10; 4:32-35; 5:1-11), but then placed them within a historical framework which suppressed their normative claims on his own time by promoting the image of a hard working, generous and financially independent Paul as the model for his o\vn time. These possible explanations of the real author's underlying motives and intentions, although plausible, must, of course, be regarded as speculative.

289

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abogunriu, S. O. "The Three Variant Accounts of Peter's Call: A Critical and Theological Examination of the Texts." New Testament Studies 31 (1985): 587-602.

Abraham, M. V. "Good News to the Poor in Luke's Gospel." Bangalore Theological Forum 19 (1987): 1-13.

Achtemeier, Paul J. "Jesus and the Disciples As Miracle Workers in the Apocryphal New Testament." Aspects 0/ Religious Propaganda in Judaism and Early Christianity, ed. E. Schussler Fiorenza, 149-76. South Bend: University of Notre Dame Press, 1976.

____.. "The Lucan Perspective on the Miracles of Jesus: A Preliminary Sketch." Journal o/Biblical Literature 94 (1975): 547-62.

Aichele, George. "On Postmodem Biblical Criticism and Exegesis." Forum 5 (1989): 547-62.

Aland, Barbara. "Entstehung, Charakter und Herkunft des sog. westlichen Textes untersucht in die Apostelgeschichte." Ephermerides Theologicae Lovanienses 62 (1986): 5-65.

Albertz, Rainer. "Die 'Antrittspredigt' Jesu im Lukasevangelium auf ihrem alttestamentlichen Hintergrund." Zeitschrijt for die Neutestamentliche Wissenschajt 74 (1983): 182-206.

Alexander, Joseph Addison. The Acts o/the Apostles. 3rd ed. New York: Scribner, 1866. 290 Alexander, Loveday. "Ancient Book Production and the Circulation of the Gospels." The Gospeljor All Christiants, ed. Richard Bauckham, 71-112. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998.

____,. "'In Journeyings Often:' Voyaging in the Acts of the Apostles and in Greek Romance." Luke's Literary Achievement, ed. C. M. Tuckett, 17-49. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995.

___. "Luke's Preface in the Context of Greek Preface-Writing." Novum Testamentum 28 (I 986): 48-74.

___. "The Preface to Acts and the Historians." History, Literature, and Society in the Book oj Acts, ed. Ben Witherington, 73-103. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.

Allison, Dale C. "The Literary Reach of Matthew 26:47-27:56." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 56 (1994): 701-14.

___' "Was There a Lukan Community?" Irish Biblical Studies 10 (1988): 62-70.

Anderson, Hugh. "Broadening Horizons: The Rejection at Nazareth Peri cope of Luke 4: 16-30 in Light of Recent Research." Interpretation 17 (1964): 259- 75.

Andrews, A. C. "Did Seneca Practise the Ethics of His Epistles." Classical Journal 25 (1930): 611-25.

Arlandson, James Malcolm. Women, Class, and Society in Early Christianity: Models From Luke-Acts. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1997.

Arnaldich, Luis. "Los Estudios Biblicos de Espana desde 1900 hasta 1955." Boletin de Sagrada Escritura 21 (1955): 426-71, 707-62.

Arndt, William. Luke. Concordia Classic Commentary Series. St. Louis: Concordia, 1956. 291 Arrington, French L. The Acts of the Apostles: An Introduction and Commentary. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1988.

Ascough, Richard S. "The Crowds in Luke-Acts: Political-Apologetic in Defense of the Christian Community." M.A. Thesis. University of St. Michael's College, 1992.

____. "Narrative Technique and Generic Designation: Crowd Scenes in Luke-Acts and in Chariton." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 58, no. 1 (1996): 69-81.

Aune, David E. The New Testament in Its Literary Environment. Library of Early Christianity 8. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1987.

Aymer, Birchfield Charlesworth Peston. "A Socioreligious Revolution: A Sociological Exegesis of 'Poor' and 'Rich' in Luke-Acts." Ph.D. Dissertation. Boston University, 1987.

Baarda, Tijitze. "'A Staff Only, Not a Stick:' Disharmony of the Gospels and the Harmony of Tatian (Matthew 10,9f.; Mark 6,8£; Luke 9,3 and 10,4)." The New Testament in Early Christianity, ed. Jean-Marie Sevrin, 311-33. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1989.

Baarlink, Heinrich. "Friede im Himmel: Die lukanische Redaktion von Lk 19:38 und ihre Deutung." Zeitschrift for die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 76 (1985): 170-86.

____. "Ein gnadiges Jahr des Herrn-und Tage der Vergeltung." Zeitschrift fur die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 73 (1982): 204-20.

Balch, David L. "Acts As Hellenistic Historiography." Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers, ed. Kent Harold Richards, 429-32. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985.

____. "Comparing Literary Patterns in Luke and Lucian." Perkins Journal 40 (1987): 39-42.

____. "The Genre of Luke-Acts: Individual Biography, Adventure Novel, or Political History?" Southwestern Journal of Theology 33 (1990): 5-19. 292 ____,. "Rich and Poor, Proud and Humble in Luke-Acts." The Social World of the First Christians: Essays in Honor of Wayne A. Meeks, eds. L. Micheal White and O. Larry Yarbrough, 214-33. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995.

Bammel, Ernst. "TTTwxoc;," Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, eds. Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, 10 vols., 6: 885-915. Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids: Eerdrnans, 1964-76.

____. "The Baptist in Early Christian Tradition." New Testament Studies 18 (1971-72): 95-128.

____,. "The Revolution Theory From Reimarus to Brandon." Jesus and the Politics of His Day, eds. Emst Bammel and C. F. D. Moule, 11-68. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984.

Bamouw, Dagmar. Review of Act of Reading and The Implied Reader, by Wolfgang Iser. Modern Language Notes 94 (1979): 1207-14.

Barrett, C. K. The Acts of the Apostles. 2 vols. International Critical and Exegetical Commentary. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1994-98.

___. "How History Should Be Written." History, Literature, and Society in the Book of Acts, ed. Ben Witherington, 33-57. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.

____. Luke the Historian in Recent Study. London: Epworth, 1961.

____. "Paul's Address to the Ephesian Elders." God's Christ and His People: Studies in Honor of Nils Alstrup Dahl, eds. Jacob Jervell and Wayne A. Meeks, 107-21. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 1977.

Bartchy, S. Scott. "Community of Goods in Acts: Idealization or Social Reality." The Future of Early Christianity, ed. Birger A. Pearson, 309-19. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1991.

Barton, George A. The Apostolic Age and the New Testament. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1936. 293 Bartsch, Hans-Werner. "Die soziale Aspelct der urchristlichen Paranese von ihrem Ansatzpunkt her." Communio Viatorium 5 (1962): 255-60.

Bassler, Jouette. "The Parable of the Loaves." Journal ofReligion 66 (1986): 157- 72.

Batey, Richard. Jesus and the Poor: The Poverty Program ofthe First Christians. New York: Harper and Row, 1972.

Batson, L. E. "A Study of Jesus' Teachings on Possessions As Presented in the Gospel of Luke." Th.D. Dissertation. Southern Baptist Seminary, 1957.

Bauckham, Richard. "The Brothers and Sisters of Jesus: An Epiphanian Response to John P. Meier." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 56 (1994): 686-700.

____. "For Whom Were Gospels Written?" The Gospelfor All Christians, 9- 48. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998.

___. "The Rich Man and Lazarus: The Parable and the Parallels." New Testament Studies 37 (1991): 225-46.

Bauernfreind, Otto. Die Apostelgeschichte. Theologischer Handkommentar zum Neuen Testamentum, no. 5. Leipzig: A. Deichertsche, 1939.

Baumgartner, Ephrem. "Der Kommunismus im Urchristenturn." Zeitschrijt for Theologie und Kirche 31 (1920): 275-97.

Beare, F. W. "The Mission of the Disciples and the Mission Charge: Matthew 10 and Parallels." Journal ofBiblical Literature 89 (1970): 1-13.

Beavis, Mary Ann. "'Expecting Nothing in Return:' Luke's Picture of the Marginalized." Interpretation 48, no. 4 (1994): 357-68.

____. "Ancient Slavery As an Interpretive Context for the New Testament Servant Parables with Special Reference to the Unjust Steward." Journal ofBiblical Literature 111 (1992): 37-54. 294 ___. "The Foolish Landowner (Luke 12:16b-20)." Jesus and His Parables, ed. V. George Shillington, 55-68. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1997.

Behm, Johannes. "Kommunismus und Urchristenturn." Neue kirchliche Zeitschriji 31 (1920): 275-97.

Bemile, Paul. The Magnificat Within the Context and Framework of Lukan Theology: An Exegetical Theological Study of Luke 1:46-55. Regensburger Studien zur Theologie, no. 34. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1986.

Bentwich, Norman. Philo-Judaeus of Alexandria. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1910.

Bergmeier, Roland. "Die Gestalt des Simon Magus in Apg 8 und in der simonianischen Gnosis-Aporien einer Gesamtdeutung." Zeitschriji for die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 77 (1986): 267-75.

Bergquist, James A. "'Good News to the Poor'-Why Does This Lucan Motif Appear to Run Dry in the Book of Acts?" Bangalore Theological Forum 18, no. 1 (1986): 1-16.

Betz, Hans Dieter. "Eschatology in the Sermon on the Mount and the Sermon on the Plain." Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers, ed. Kent Harold Richards, 343-50. Missoula: Scholars Press, 1985.

Bigelmair, Andreas. "Zur Frage des Sozialismus und Kommunismus im Christenturn des ersten drei Jahrhunderte." Beitrage zur Geschichte des christlichen Altertums und del' Byzantinischen Literatur: Festgabe Albert Ehrhard zum 60 Geburtstag, ed. Albert M. Koniger, 73-93. Leipzig: Kurt Schroeder, 1922.

Bishop, Eric F. F. "A Yawning Chasm." Evangelical Quarterly 45, no. 1 (1973): 3-5.

Black, C. Clifton. "John Mark in the Acts of the Apostles." Literary Studies in Luke-Acts, 101-20. eds. Richard P. Thompson and Thomas E. Phillips (Macon: Mercer University Press, 1998. 295 Black, Mark. "Paul and Roman Law in Acts." Restoration Quarterly 24 (1981): 209-18.

Bloom, Edward. "In Defense of Authors and Readers." NovellI (1977): 5-25.

Bock, Darrell L. "Framing the Account: Alleviating Confusion on the Lukan Portrait of Jesus." Society 0/ Biblical Literature Seminar Papers, ed. Eugene H. Lovering, 612-26. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1994.

____. Luke. 2 vols. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994-96.

Booth, Wayne C. "Interview," ed. RudolfE. Kuenzli, Diacritics 10 (1980): 77-78.

Borrat, Hector. "Las Bienaventuranzas y el Cambio Social." Fe Cristiana y Cambio social en America Latina, 213-29. Salmanca: Ediciones Sigueme, 1993.

Botha, J. "Iser's Wandering Viewpoint: A Reception-Analytical Reading of Luke 12:25-48." Neotestamentica 22 (1988): 253-68.

Boughton, Lynne Courter. "From Pious Legend to Feminist Fantasy: Distinquishing Hagiographical License From Apostolic Practice in the Acts of Paul and Thecla." Journal o/Religion 71 (1991): 362-83.

Bovon, Franyois. Luke the Theologian: Thirty-three Years 0/ Research (1950-83). Translated by Ken McKitmey. Allison Park: Pickwick Press, 1987.

Braun, Willi. Feasting and Social Rhetoric in Luke 14. Cambridge: University Press, 1995.

____. "Symposium or Anti-Symposium: Reflections on Luke 14:1-24." Toronto Journal o/Theology 8 (1992): 70-84.

Bridel, Laude. "Espiritu Comunitario y Diaconia segun los Hechos de los Apostoles 2, 42 & 4, 32." El Diaconado Permanente en la Iglesia: Estudios y Documentos, 301-08. Salamanca: Ediciones Sigueme, 1978. 296 Brodie, Thomas 1. "Luke-Acts As an Imitation and Emulation of the Elijah­ Elisha Narrative." New Views on Luke and Acts, ed. Earl Richard, 78-85, 172-74. Collegeville: Michael Glazier, 1990.

____. "Towards Unraveling the Rhetorical Imitation of Sources in Acts: 2 Kgs 5 As One Component of Acts 8, 9-40." Biblica 67 (1986): 41-67.

Brown, Colin. "The Unjust Steward: A New Twist?" Worship, Theology and Ministry: Essays in Honor ofRalph P. Martin, eds. Michael J. Wilkins and Terrence Paige, 121-45. Sheffield: Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Press, 1992.

Brown, Raymond E. "The Beatitudes According to Luke." New Testament Essays, 265-72. Milwaukee: Bruce, 1965.

___. The Birth ofthe Messiah. Garden City: Doubleday, 1977.

Brown, Robert McMee. Unexpected News: Reading the Bible with Third World Eyes. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1984.

Brown, Schuyler. Apostasy and Perservance in the Theology of Luke. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1969.

____. "Reader Response: Demythologising the Text." New Testament Studies 34 (1988): 232-37.

____. "The Role of the Prologues in Detennining the Purpose of Luke-Acts." Perspectives on Luke-Acts, ed. Charles H. Talbert, 99-111. Danville: Association of Baptist Proressors of Religion, 1978.

Bruce, F. F. The Acts of the Apostles: The Greek Text with Introduction and Commentary. 3'd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990.

____,. "The Church of Jerusalem in the Acts of the Apostles." Bulletin ofthe John Rylands University Library ofManchester 67 (1985): 641-61. 297 ____,. Commentary On The Book of Acts: The English Text with Introduction, Exposition and Notes. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdrnans, 1954.

____.. "Philip and the Ethiopian." Journal ofSemitic Studies 34 (1989): 377- 86.

____. "The Significance of the Speeches for Interpreting Acts." Southwestern Journal of Theology 33 (1990): 20-28.

Bumstead, Arthur. "Acts: The Present Status of Criticism." The Biblical World 17 (1901): 355-60.

Burn, Geoffrey. "The Parable of the Bad Exegete: A Note on Luke 10:29-37." Expository Times 111 (2000): 299-300.

Burrus, Virginia. Chastity As Autonomy: Women in the Stories of Apocryphal Acts. Studies in Women and Religion, no. 23. Lewiston: Edwin Mellen Press, 1987.

Byrne, Brendan. "Forceful Stewardship and Neglected Wealth: A Contemporary Reading of Luke 16." Pacifica 1 (1988): 1-14.

Cadbury, Henry Joel. The Book of Acts in History. London: A. and C. Black, 1955.

____. The Making ofLuke-Acts. 2nd ed. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1999.

___...... "Lexical Notes on Luke-Acts, III: Luke's Interest in Lodging." Journal ofBiblical Literature 45 (1926): 305-22.

Caemmerer, Richard R. "Investment for Eternity: A Study of Luke 16:1-13." Concordia Theological Monthly 34 (1963): 69-76.

Campbell, Colin. Critical Studies in St. Luke's Gospel: Its Demonology and Ebionitism. Edinburgh: William Blackwood and Sons, 1891. 298 Cancik, Hubert. "The History of Culture, Religion, and Institutions in Ancient Historiography: Philological Observations Concerning Luke's History." Journal ofBiblical Literature 116, no. 4 (1997): 673-95.

Capper, Brian J. '''In der Hand des Ananias ... ' Erwangungen zu IQS VI, 20 und der urchristlichen Gutergemeinschaft." Revue de Qumran 12 (1986): 223- 36.

___. "The Interpretation of Acts 5.4." Journal for the Study of the New Testament 19 (1983): 117-31.

___. "The Palestinian Cultural Context of the Earliest Christian Community." The Book of Acts in Its Palestinian Setting, ed. Richard Bauckham, 323-56. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995.

Carey, W. Gregory. "Excuses, Excuses: The Parable of the Banquet (Luke 14:15- 24) Within the Larger Context of Luke." Irish Biblical Studies 17 (1995): 177-87.

Cassidy, Richard J. Jesus, Politics and Society: A Study of Luke's Gospel. New York: Orbis, 1978.

___. Society and Politics in the Acts of the Apostles. Maryknoll: Orbis, 1987.

Catchpole, David R. "Jesus and the Community of Israel-The Inaugural Discourse in Q." Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library 68 (1986): 296-316.

___. "The Mission Charge in Q." Semeia 55 (1991): 147-74.

Cave, C. H. "Lazarus and the Lukan Deuteronomy." New Testament Studies 15 (1969): 319-25.

Celada, B. "Distribuci6n de los Bienes y Seguirniento de Jesus segUn Lucas 18:18-30." CuEtlira Biblica 26 (1969): 337-40. 299 del Cerro, Gonzalo. "Los Hechos Apocrifos de Los Apostoles: Su Genreo Literario." Estudios Biblicos 51 (1993): 207-32.

Clark, Elizabeth A. The Aristotelian Contribution to Clement of Alexandria's Refotation ofGnosticism. New York: Edwin Mellen Press, 1977.

Clark, George W. The Acts of the Apostles. Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, 1896.

Clement of Alexandria. "The Rich Man's Salvation," Translated by G. W. Butterworth. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1955.

Cobb, Sanford H. "The Fellowship of Goods in the Apostolic Church." Presbyterian and Reformed Review 8 (1897): 17-34.

Colella, Pasquale. "Zu Lk 16:7." Zeitschrijt fur die Neutestamentliche Wissenschajt 64 (1973): 124-26.

Combrink, H. 1. B. "Multiple Meaning and/or Multiple Interpretation of a Text." Neotestamentica 18 (1984): 26-37.

"Readings, Readers and the Authors: An Orientation," Neotestamentica 22 (1988): 189-203.

___' "The Structure and Significance of Luke 4:16-30." Neotestamentica 7 (1973): 27-47.

Compston, H. F. B. "Friendship and Mammon." ExpoSit01Y Times 31 (1919-20): 282.

Conzelmann, Hans. Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles. Hermeneia: A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible. Edited by Eldon Jay Epp and Christopher R. Matthews. Translated by James Limburg, A. Thomas Krabel and Donald H, Juel. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987. 300 ____. "Luke's Place in the Development of Early Christianity." Studies in Luke-Acts, eds. Leander E. Keck and 1. Louis Martyn, 298-316. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980.

___. The Theology of St. Luke. Translated by Geoffrey Buswell. San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1960.

Costa, C. D. N. Seneca: Four Dialogues. Warminster: Aris and Phillips, 1994.

Cowton, Christopher 1. "The Alms Trade: A Note on Identifying the Beautiful Gate of Acts 3:2." New Testament Studies 42 (1996): 475-76.

Craddock, Fred B. "The Gospels As Literature." Encounter 49 (1988): 19-35.

____. Luke. Interpretation. Louisville: John Knox Press, 1990.

Cranfield, C. E. B. "The Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37)." Theology Today 11 (1954): 368-72.

Crosman, lnge. "Annotated Bibliography of Audience-Oriented Criticism." The Reader in the Text: Essays on Audience and Interpretation, eds. Robert Polzin and Eugene Rothman, 401-24. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1982.

Crossan, John Dominic. "Open Healing and Open Eating: Jesus As a Jewish Cynic?" Biblical Research 36 (1991): 6-18.

___" "Parable and Example in the Teaching of Jesus." Semeia 1 (1974): 63- 104.

Culpepper, R. Alan. Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel: A Study in Literary Design. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983.

Cunningham, Scott Smith. '''Through Many Tribulations:' The Theology of Persecution in Luke-Acts." Ph.D. Dissertation. Dallas Theological Seminary, 1994. 301 D'Angelo, Mary Rose. "Women Partners in the New Testament." Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion 6 (1990): 65-86.

Danker, Frederick W. Benefactor: Epigraphic Study ofa Graeco-Roman and New Testament Semantic Field. S1. Louis: Clayton Publishing, 1982.

____. "The Endangered Benefactor in Luke-Acts." Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers, ed. Kent Harold Richards, 39-48. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992.

____. Jesus and the New Age: A Commentary on St. Luke's Gospel. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988.

____. "Luke 16:16-An Opposition Logion." Journal of Biblical Literature 77 (1958): 231-43.

____. "Reciprocity in the Ancient World and in Acts 15:3-29." Political Issues in Luke-Acts, eds. Richard J. Cassidy and Philip J. Scharper, 49-58. Maryknoll: Orbis, 1983.

Davies, Stevan L. The Revolt of the Widows: The Social World ofthe Apocryphal Acts. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1980.

____. "Women in the Third Gospel and the New Testament Apocrypha." Women Like This: New Perspectives on Jewish Women in the Graeco­ Roman World, ed. Amy-Jill Levine, 185-97. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991.

___. "Women, Tertullian and the Acts of Paul." Semeia 38 (1986): 39-43.

Dawsey, James Marshall. The Literary Function of Point of View in Controlling Confusion and Irony in the Gospel of Luke. Ann Arbor: University Microfilms International, 1984.

___. "The Literary Unity of Luke-Acts: Questions of Style-A Task for Literary Critics." New Testament Studies 35 (1989): 48-66.

____. The Lukan Voice: Confosion and Irony in the Gospel of Luke. Macon: Mercer University Press, 1986. 302 ----· "What's in a Name? Characterization in Luke." Biblical Theology Bulletin 16 (1986): 143-47.

Degenhardt, Hans-Joachim. Lukas Evangelist der Armen: Besitz und Besitzverzicht in den lukanischen Schriften: Eine traditions- und redactionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung. Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1965.

Degenhardt, Johannes Joachim. "Die ersten Christen und der irdische Besitz." Die Freude an Gott-Unsere Kraft, eds. Eleonore Beck and Eugen Sitarz, 150- 56. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1989.

Demel, Sabine. "Jesu Umgang mit Frauen nach dem Lukasevangelium." Biblische Notizen 57 (1991): 41-95.

Derrett, 1. Duncan M. "Annanias, Sapphira, and the Right of Property." Downside Review 89 (1971): 225-32.

----· "Birds of the Air and Lilies of the Field." Downside Review 105 (1987): 181-92.

____. "Eating Up the Houses of Widows." Novum Testamentum 14 (1972): 1-9.

___. "Fresh Light on St. Luke XVI. I: The Parable of the Unjust Steward." New Testament Studies 7 (1961): 363-80.

___. "Fresh Light on St. Luke XVI. II: Dives Lazarus and the Preceeding Sayings." New Testament Studies 7 (1961): 198-219.

----· "James and John As Co-Rescuers From Peril (Lk. V 10)." Novum Testamentum 22 (1980): 299-303.

____. Law in the New Testament. London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1970.

----· "Law in the New Testament: Fresh Light on the Parable of the Good Samaritan." New Testament Studies 11 (1964-65): 22-37. 303

____. "Luke's Perspective on Tribute to Caesar." Political Issues in Luke­ Acts, eds. Richard 1. Cassidy and Philip 1. Scharper, 38-48. Maryknoll: Orbis, 1983.

___" "Nisi Dominus Aedificaverit Domun: Towers and Wars (Lk XIV 28- 32)." Novum Testamentum 19 (1977): 241-61.

___" "The Rich Fool: A Parable of Jesus Concerning Inheritance." Heythrop Journal 18 (1977): 131-51.

___. "Take Thy Bond ... And Write Fifty (Luke Xvi.6): The Nature of Bond." Journal of Theological Studies 23 (1972): 438-40.

Dietrich, Walter. "'... den Armen das Evangelium zu Verkfinden' vom Befreienden sin biblisher Gesetze." Theologische Zietschrijl 41 (1985): 31-43.

Dillman, Rainer. "Das Lukasevangelium als Tendenzschrift: Leserlenkung und Leseintention in Lk 1, 1-4." Biblische Zeitschrijl 38, no. 1 (1994): 87-93.

Dillon, Richard J. From Eye-Witnesses to Ministers of the Word: Tradition and Composition in Luke 24. Analecta Biblica, no. 82. Rome: Biblical Institute, 1978.

___" "Previewing Luke's Project From His Prologue (Luke 1:1-4)." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 43, no. 2 (1981): 205-27.

___" "Ravens, Lilies, and the Kingdom of God (Matthew 6:25-33ILuke 12:22-31." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 53 (1991): 605-27.

Dodd, C. H. "The Beatitudes: A Form-Critical Study." More New Testament Studies, 1-10. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968.

Domeris, W. R. "Biblical Perspectives on the Poor." Journal of Theology for Southern Afi'ica 57 (1986): 57-61. 304 Donahue, John R. "Tax Collectors and Sinners: An Attempt at Identification." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 33 (1971): 39-61.

___. "Two Decades of Research on the Rich and the Poor in Luke-Acts." Justice and the Holy: Essays in Honor of Walter Harrelson, eds. Douglas A. Knight and Peter J. Paris, 129-44. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989.

Doran, Robert. "The Divinization of Disorder: The Trajectory of Matt 8:201Luke 9:58/Gos Thorn 86." The Future of Early Christianity, ed. Birger A. Pearson, 210-19. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991.

Downing, F. Gerald. "The Ambiguity of 'the Pharisee and the Toll-Collector' (Luke 18:9-14) in the Greco-Roman World of Late Antiquity." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 54 (1992): 80-99.

___. "Cynics and Christians." New Testament Studies 30 (1984): 584-93 .

---. "Deeper Reflections on the Jewish Cynic Jesus." Journal of Biblical Literature 117 (1998): 97-104.

___. "Philo on Wealth and the Rights of the Poor." Journalfor the Study of the New Testament 24 (1992): 116-18.

___. "Theophilus's First Reading of Luke-Acts." Luke's Literary Acheivement, ed. C. M. Tuckett, 91-109. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995.

Drake, Larry. "The Reversal Theme in Luke." Ph.D. Dissertation. St. Louis University, 1985.

Diimont, Enrique. "La Koinonia en los Primeros Cinco Capitulos de los Hechos de los Apostles." Revista Biblica 24 (1962): 22-32.

Duncan-Jones, Richard. The Economy of the Roman Empire: Quantitative Studies. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982.

___. Structure and Scale in the Roman Economy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990. 305 Dunn, James D. G. The Acts of the Apostles. Narrative Commentaries. Valley Forge: Trinity Press International, 1996.

Dunn, Peter W. "Women's Liberation, The Acts of Paul, and Other Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles." Apocrypha 4 (1993): 245-61.

Dupont, Jacques. "Conversion in the Acts of the Apostles." The Salvation of the Gentiles, trans. 1. R. Keating, 61-84. New York: Paulist Press, 1979.

____. "The Poor and Poverty in the Gospels and Acts." Gospel Poverty: Essays in Biblical Theology, trans. Michael D. Guinan, 25-52. Chicago: Fransican Herald Press, 1977. ____,. The Sources ofActs. New York: Herder and Herder, 1964.

Elliot, John H. "Household and Meals Vs Temple Purity: Replication Patterns in Luke-Acts." Biblical Theology Bulletin 21 (1991): 102-08.

____,. "Patronage and Clientism in Early Chrisitian Society." Forum 3 (1987): 39-48.

Ellis, E. Earle. The Gospel According to Luke. New Century Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983.

Epp, Eldon Jay. Theological Tendency of Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis in Acts. Society of New Testament Studies Monograph Series, no. 3. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1966.

Erdman, Charles R. The Gospel of Luke: An Exposition. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1928.

Ernst, Josef. "Das Evangelium nach Lukas-kein soziales Evangelium." Theologie und Glaube 67 (1977): 415-21.

Esler, Philip F. Community and Gospel in Luke-Acts: The Social and Political Motivations of Lucan Theology. Sheffield New Testament Studies Monograph Series, no. 57. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. 306 ____,. Review of The Economy of the Kingdom: Social Conflict and Economic Relations in Luke's Gospel, by Halvor Moxnes. Theology 93 (1990): 160-62.

Evans, Christopher F. Saint Luke. Trinity Press International New Testament Commentaries. Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1990.

____. "Uncomfortable Words-V: ' ... Neither Will They Be Convinced.'" Expository Times 81 (1969-70): 228-31.

Evans, Craig A. Luke. New International Bible Commentary. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1990.

____,. "Luke 16:1-18 and the Deuteronomy Hypothesis." Luke and Scripture: The Function of Sacred Tradition in Luke-Acts, 121-39. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1993.

____,. "Luke's Use of the ElijahlElisha Narratives and the Ethic of Election." Journal ofBiblical Literature 106 (1987): 75-83.

Exurn, Cheryl and Charles H. Talbert. "Structure of Paul's Speech to the Ephesian Elders (Acts 20: 18-35)." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 29 (1967): 233-36.

Farrar, Frederick William. The Early Days of Christianity. New York: E. P. Dutton, 1879.

____. The Gospel According to St Luke with Maps, Notes and Introduction. Cambridge: University Press, 1910.

Farris, Stephen. The Hymns of Luke's Infancy Narratives. Journal for Study of the New Testament Supplement, no. 9. Sheffield: Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Press, 1985.

Ferguson, John. Clement ofAlexandria. New York: Twayne Publishers, 1974.

Findley, M. 1. The Ancient Economy. 2nd ed. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985. 307 Firth, C. B. "The Parable of the Unrighteous Steward (Luke Xvi. 1-9)." Expository Times 63 (1951-52): 93-95.

Fish, Stanley. "Interpreting the Variorum." Reader-Response Criticism, ed. Jane Tompkins, 164-84. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1980.

____'. Is There a Text in This Class? The Authority of Interpretive Communities. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1989.

____,. "Literature in the Reader: Affective Stylistics." Reader-Response Criticism, ed. Jane Tompkins, 70-100. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1980.

___....;. "Why No One's Afraid of Wolfgang Iser." Doing What Comes Naturally: Change, Rhetoric, and the Practice of Theory in Literary and Legal Studies, 68-86. Durham: Duke University Press, 1989.

Fitzmyer, Joseph A. The Acts of the Apostles. Anchor Bible. New York: Doubleday, 1998.

____,. The Gospel According to Luke. 2 vols. Anchor Bible. Garden City: Doubleday, 1981-85.

____. Luke the Theologian. New York: Paulist Press, 1989.

___" "The Story of the Dishonest Manager." Theological Studies 25 (1964): 23-42.

Fletcher, Donald R. "The Riddle of the Unjust Steward: Is Irony the Key?" Journal ofBiblical Literature 82 (1963): 15-30.

Flusser, D. "Blessed Are the Poor in Spirit ..." Israel Exploration Journal 10 (1960): 1-13.

Foakes-Jackson, F. 1. The Acts of the Apostles. Moffatt New Testament Commentary. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1931. 308 Fowl, Stephen E. "The Ethics of Interpretation or What's Left Over After the Elimination of Meaning." Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers, ed. David J. Lull, 69-81. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988.

Fowler, Robert M. "Postmodem Biblical Criticism." Forum 5 (1989): 3-30.

____. "Who Is 'the Reader' in Reader Response Criticism?" Semeia 31 (1985): 3-30.

Frankemolle, Hubert. "Die Markarismus (Mt 5,1-12; Lk 6,20-23): Motive und Umfang der redaktionellen Komposition." Biblische ZeitschriJt 15 (1971): 52-75.

Freiere, Carlos Escudero. Devolver el Evangelio a los Pobres: A Proposito de Luc 1-2. Biblioteca de Estudios Biblicos, no. 19. Salamanca: Ediciones Sigueme, 1978.

Frein, Brigid Curtin. "The Literary Significance of the Jesus-as-Prophet Motifin the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles." Ph.D. Dissertation. St. Louis University, 1989.

Freund, Elizabeth. The Return of the Reader: Reader-Response Criticism. New York: Methuen Press, 1987.

Glichter, Paul. "The Parable of the Dishonest Steward After Oriental Conceptions." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 12 (1950): 121-31.

Gallagher, Eugene V. "Conversion and Salvation in the Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles." Second Century 8 (1991): 13-29.

Garlatti, Guillermo. "Evangelizacion y Liberacion de los Pobres: Lucas 4, 16-21." Revista Biblica 49 (1987): 1-15.

Garnsey, Peter. Famine and Food Supply in the Graeco-Roman World: Responses to Risk and Crisis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988.

Gasque, W. Ward. A History of the Interpretation of the Acts of the Apostles. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1989. 309 Gelin, Albert. The Poor of Yahweh. Translated by Kathryn Sullivan. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1964.

Gerhardsson, Birger. "Einige Bermerkungen zu Apg 4,32." Studia Theologica 24 (1970): 142-49.

The Good Samaritan-The Good Shepherd. Coniectanea Neotestamentica, no. 16. Lund: C. W. K. Gleerup, 1958.

Gerok, Karl. Von Jerusalem nach Rom. Giitersloh: Berte1smann, 1882.

Giblin, Charles Homer. "'The Things of God' in the Question Concerning Tribute to Caesar (Luke 20:25, Mark 12:17, Matthew 22:21)." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 33 (1971): 510-27.

Gilbert, N. W. "The Concept of Will in Early Latin Philosophy." Journal of the History ofPhilosophy 1 (1963): 17-35.

Gill, David W. 1. "Acts and the Urban Elites." The Book of Acts in Its Graeco­ Roman Setting, 105-18. The Book of Acts in Its First Century Setting. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994.

Gillman, John. Possessions and the Life of Faith: A Reading of Luke-Acts. Collegeville: Michael Glazier, 1991.

Glenny, W. Edward. "1 Corinthians 7:29-31 and the Teaching of Continence in the Acts of Paul and Thecla." Grace Theological Journal 11 (1990): 53- 70.

Glombitza, Otto. "Der reiche Mann und der arme Lazarus." Novum Testamentum 11 (1970): 166-80.

____. "Das grosse Abendmmahl: Luk. XIV 12-24." Novum Testamentum 5 (1962): 10-16.

Goldsmith, Dale. Review of Possessions and the Poor in Luke-Acts, by David Peter Seccombe. Journal ofBiblical Literature 104 (1985): 148-50. 310 Gonzalez, Justo L. Hechos. Miami: Editorial Caribe, 1992.

Gordon, James G. "The Parable of the Good Samaritan (St. Luke x.25-37): A Suggested Reorientation." Expository Times 56 (1944-45): 302-04.

Gorringe, Timothy. "A Zealot Option Rejected? Luke 12:13-14." Expository Times 98 (1987): 267-70.

Gould, Josiah B. "Reason in Seneca." Journal of the History of Philosophy 3 (1965): 13-25.

Grant, Frederick C. The Early Days of Christianity. New York: Abingdon, 1922.

___. The Economic Background of the Gospels. New York: Russell & Russell, 1973.

___. "The Economic Significance of Messianism (part 1)." Anglican Theological Review 6 (1923): 196-213.

___.. "The Economic Significance of Messianism (Part 2)." Anglican Theological Review 7 (1923): 281-89.

___.. "The Impracticability of the Gospel Ethics." Aux Sources de la tradition chretienne: Mellanges offerts aM Maurice Goguel a l'occassion de son soixante-dixieme, 86-94. Neuchmel: Delachaux and Niestle, 1950.

Grant, W. M. Ideals of the Early Church: The Religious Ideas ofActs. London: James Clarke, 1923.

Grasser, E. "Acta-Forschung seit 1960." Theologische Rundschau 41 (1976): 141- 96.

___. "Acta-Forschung seit 1960." Theologische Rundschau 41 (1976): 259- 90.

___. "Acta-Forschung seit 1960." Theologische Rundschau 42 (1977): 1-68. 311 Green, Joel B. "Good News to Whom? Jesus and the 'Poor' in the Gospel of Luke." Jesus oJNazareth: Lord and Christ, ed. Max Turner, 59-74. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994.

____. The Gospel oj Luke. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997.

Griffin, Miriam T. "Imago Vitae Suae." Seneca, ed. C. D. N. Costa, 1-38. Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1974.

Guthrie, Donald. "Acts and Epistles in Aprocryphal Writings." Apostolic History and the Gospel, eds. W. Ward Gasque and Ralph P. Martin, 328-45. Exeter: Paternoster, 1970.

Guttgemanns, Erhardt. "In Welchem Sinne ist Lukas 'Historiker?'" Linguistica Biblica 54 (1983): 9-24.

Haacker, Klaus. "Verwendung und Vermeidung des Apostelbegriffs im lukanischen Werk." Novum Testamentum 30 (1988): 9-38.

Haenchen, Ernst. The Acts ojthe Apostles: A Commentary. Translated by R. McL. Wilson. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971.

Haenchen, Ernst and Peter Weigandt. "The Original Text of Acts?" New Testament Studies 14 (1968): 469-81.

Hahn, Ferdinand. "Der gegenwiirtige Stand der Erforschung der Apostelgeschichte: Kommentare und Aufsatzbande 1980-85." Theologische Revue 82 (1986): 117-90.

____,. Mission in the New Testament. Studies in Biblical Theology, no. 47. Naperville: Allenson, 1965.

Haller, W. "Das Eigentum im Glauben und Leben der nachapostolichen Kirche." Theologische Studien und Kritiken 64 (1891): 478-563.

Hamm, Dennis. Review of Possessions and the Poor in Luke-Acts, by David Peter Seccombe. Catholic Biblical Quarterly 46 (1984): 371-73. 312 ____. Review of The Economy of the Kingdom: Social Conflict and Economic Relations in Luke's Gospel, by Halvor Moxnes. Theological Studies 51 (1990): 172-73.

___. "Acts 3,1-10: The Healing of the Temple Beggar As Lucan Theology." Biblica 67 (1986): 305-19.

____,. "Luke 19:8 Once Again: Does Zacchaeus Defend or Resolve?" Journal ofBiblical Literature 107 (1988): 431-37.

____,. "The Rich Fool and the Speech on Mars Hill: From the Comic to the Cosmic in Luke's Creator-Centered Theology." An Ecology of the Spirit: Religious Reflection and Environmental Consciousness, ed. Michael Barnes, 85-95. New York: University Press of America, 1990.

___. "Zacchaeus Revisited Once More: A Story of Vindication or Conversion?" Biblica 72 (1991): 249-52.

Hampden-Cook, E. "The Unjust Steward." Expository Times 16 (1904-05): 44.

Hanig, Roman. "Simon Magus in der Petrusakten und die Theodotianer." Studia Patristica31 (1997): 112-20.

Hansack, Ernst. "'Er lebt .. von seinem eigenen Einkommen' (Apg 28,30)." Biblische Zeitschrijt 19 (1975): 249-53.

___. "Nochmals zu Apostelgeschichte 28,30." Biblische Zeitschrijt 21 (1977): 118-21.

Haraguchi, Takaaki. "Das Unterhaltsrecht des fruhchristlichen Verkundigers: Eine Untersuchung zur Bezeichnung Ergates im Neuen Testament." Zeitschrijt for die Neutestamentliche Wissenschafi 84 (1993): 178-95.

Harvey, A. E. "'The Workman Is Worthy of His Hire:' Fortunes of a Proverb in the Early Church." Novum Testamentum 24 (1982): 209-21. 313 Hauck, Friedrich. Die Stellung des Urchristentums zu Arbeit und Geld Beitriige zur Forderung christlicher Theologie. Edited by D. A. Schlatter and D. W. LUtgert. Giitersloh: Bertelsmann, 1921.

Head, Peter. "Acts and the Problem of of Its Texts." The Book of Acts in Its Ancient Literary Setting," ed. Bruce W. Winter and Andrew D. Clarke, 415-44. The Book of Acts in Its First Century Setting. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993.

Heard, Warren. "Luke's Attitude Toward the Rich and the Poor." Trinity Journal 9 (1988): 47-80.

Heer, Josef. "Freut euch, ihr Armen ..." Die Freude an Gott-unsere Kraft: Festschrift for Otto Berhard Knoch zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. Johannes Joachim Degenhardt, 432-38. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1989.

Heiligenthal, R. "Wehrlosigkeit oder Selbstschutz? Aspekte zurn Verstandnis des " lukanischen Schwertwortes." New Testament Studies 41 (1995): 39-58.

Herner, Colin J. The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zurn Neuen Testament, no. 49. Edited by Conrad H. Grempf. Tlibingen: 1. C. B. Mohr, 1989.

____. "The Speeches of Acts: Part 1: The Ephesian Elders At Miletus." Tyndale Bulletin 40 (1989): 76-85.

Hengel, Martin, The Charismatic Leader and His Followers. Translated by James Grieg. New York: Crossroad, 1981.

____' "Christliche Kritik am Reichtum: Das Eigentum in der fiiihen Kirche." Evangelische Kommentare 6 (1973): 21-25.

____". Property and Riches in the Early Church. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974.

____". Was Jesus a Revolutionist? Translated by William Klassen. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971. 314 Hernandez, Miguel Cruz. "Los Limites del Estoicismo de Seneca." Actas del Congreso Internacional de Filosofia en Commemmoracion de Seneca, 2: 41-49. Madrid: Libreria Augustinus, 1966-67.

Henrick, Sarah. "Godfearing in Acts 10: The Changing Rules of Hospitality in Early Christianity." Ph.D. Dissertation. Yale University, 1994.

Hertig, PauL "The Mission of the Messiah and the Year of the Jubilee: A Comparison of Luke 4 and Isaiah 61." Th.M. Thesis. Fuller Theological Seminary, 1989.

Hiers, Richard H. "Friends By Unrighteous Mammon: The Eschatological Proletariat (Luke 16:9)." Journal ofthe American Academy ofReligion 38 (1970): 30-36.

Higgins, A. 1. B. "The Preface to Luke and the Kerygma in Acts." Apostolic History and the Gospel, ed. W. Ward Gasque and Ralph P. Martin, 78-9l. Exeter: Paternoster, 1970.

Hills, Julian V. "The Acts of the Apostles in the Acts of PauL" Society ofBiblical Literature Seminar Papers, ed. Eugene H. Lovering, 24-54. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1994.

____. "Tradition, Redaction, and Intertextuality: Miracle Lists in the Apocryphal Acts As a Test Case." Society ofBiblical Literature Seminar Papers, ed. David 1. Lull, 375-90. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990.

Hobbie, F. Wellford. "Luke 19:1-10." Interpretation 31 (1977): 285-90.

Hock, Ronald F. "Lazarus and Micyllus: Greco-Roman Backgrounds to Luke 16:19-31." Journal ofBiblical Literature 106 (1987): 447-63.

____. The Social Context of Paul's Ministry: Tentmaking and Apostleship. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980.

____. "The Workshop As a Social Setting for Paul's Missionary Preaching." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 4 (1979): 438-50. 315 van den Hoek, Annewies. Clement of Alexandria and His Use of Philo in the Stromateis. New York: E. 1. Brill, 1988.

Holgate, David A. Prodigality, Liberality and Meanness. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement, no. 187. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999.

Hollenbach, Paul. "Defining the Rich and Poor Using the Social Sciences." Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers, ed. Kent Harold Richards, 50-63. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987.

____,. "Liberating Jesus for Social Involvement." Biblical Theology Bulletin 15 (1985): 151-57.

____,. "Social Acts of John the Baptizer's Preaching Mission in the Context of Palestinian Judaism." Aufsteig und Niedergang der Romischen Welt 19 (1979): 850-75.

HoltzmaIlIl. H. 1. Die Apostelgeschichte. 3rd ed. Tiibingen: 1. C. B. Mohr, 1911.

____,. "Die Giitergemeinschaft der Apostelgeschichte." Strassburger Abhandlungen zur Philosophie: Festschriftfor E. Zeller, 24-60. Tiibingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1884.

____,. "Das Christentum als Evangelium der Armen" Protestanische Kirchezeitungfor das evangelische Deutschland 41 (1894): 1050-59.

HoltzmaIlIl. Oskar. "Studien zur Apostelgeschichte." Zeitschrift for Kirchengeschichte 14 (1892-94): 327-36.

____,. Was Jesus Ekstatiker? Tiibingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1903.

Hooley, B. A. and A. 1. Mason. "Some Thoughts on the Parable of the Unjust Steward (Luke 16:1-8)." Australian Biblical Review 6 (1958): 47-59.

Horn, Friedrich Wilhelm. Glaube und Handeln in die Theologie des Lukas. G5ttinger theologische Arbeiten, no. 26. G5ttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983. 316 van der Horst, Pieter W. "Hellenistic Parallels to the Acts of the Apostles 2:1-47." Journal for the Study ofthe New Testament 25 (1985): 49-60.

Howe, E. Margaret. "Interpretations of Paul in the Acts of Paul and Thecla." Pauline Studies: Essays Presented to F F Bruce on His 70th Birthday, eds. Donald A. Hagner and Murray 1. Harris, 33-49. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980.

Hoyt, Thomas Jr. "The Poor in Luke-Acts." Ph.D. Dissertation. Duke University, 1974.

____,. "The PoorlRich Theme in the Beatitudes." Journal of Religious Thought37 (1980): 31-41.

Hughes, Frank W. "The Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31) and Graeco-Roman Rhetoric." Rhetoric and the New Testament: Essays From the 1992 Heidelberg Conference, eds. Stanley Porter and Thomas Olbricht, 29-41. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993.

Hunkin, J. W. "British Work on the Acts." The Beginnings ofChristianity, eds. F. J. Foakes-Jackson and K. Lake, 2: 396-433. London: Macmillan, 1922.

Hunter, David C. "The Language of Desire: Clement of Alexandria's Transformation of Ascetic Discourse." Semeia 57 (1992): 95-111.

Ireland, Dennis J. "A History of Recent Interpretation of the Parable of the Unjust Steward (Luke 16:1-13)." Westminster Theological Journal 51 (1989): 293-318.

____. Stewardship and the Kingdom of God: An Historical, Exegetical, and Contextual Study of the Parable of the Unjust Steward in Luke 16:1-13. Novurn Testamentum Supplement, no. 70. Leiden: Brill, 1992.

Iser, Wolfgang. The Act of Reading: A Theory ofAesthetic Response. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1978.

____,. "The Current Situation of Literary Theory: Key Concepts and the Imaginary." New Literary History 11 (1979): 1-20. 317 The Implied Reader: Patterns of Communication in Prose Fiction From Runyan to Beckett. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1974.

____. "Indetenninacy and the Reader's Response in Prose Fiction." Prospecting: From Reader Response to Literwy Anthropology, 3-30. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1989 .

---. "Interaction Between Text and Reader." The Reader in the Text: Essays on Audience and Interpretation, eds. Susan R. Suleiman and luge Crosman, 106-19. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1980.

___...:. "Narrative Strategies As a Means of Communication." Interpretation of Narrative, eds. Mario 1. Valdes and Owen 1. Miller, 100-17. Toronto: University of Toronto, 1978.

____. Prospecting: From Reader Response to Literary Anthropology. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1989.

____. "The Reading Process: A Phenomonological Appoach." The Implied Reader: Patterns of Communication in Prose Fiction From Bunyan to Beckett, 274-94. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1974.

____. "The Reality of Fiction: A Functionalist Approach to Literature." New Literary History 7 (1975-76): 7-38.

____. "Talk Like Whales: A Response to Stanley Fish." Diacritics 11, no. 3 (1981): 82-87.

Jauregui, Jose Antonio. "Israel y la Iglesia en la Teologia de Lucas." Estudios Eclesiasticos 61 (1986): 129-49.

Jellicoe, Sidney. "St. Luke and the Seventy(-Two)." New Testament Studies 6 (1959-60): 319-21.

Jeremias, Joachim. Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus: An Investigation into the Economic and Social Conditions during the New Testament Period. Translated by F. H. Cave and C. H. Cave. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1969. 318 Jervell, Jacob. Die Apostelgeschichte. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998.

____. The Unknown Paul: Essays on Luke-Acts and Early Christianity. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1984.

Johnson, Luke Timothy. Review of Poverty and Expectation in the Gospels, by David L. Mealand. Catholic Biblical Quarterly 43 (1981): 653-54.

____. Review of Glaube und Handeln in der Theologie des Lukas, by Friedrich W. Hom. Catholic Biblical Quarterly 46 (1984): 790-91.

____. Review of Jesus and the Hope of the Poor, by Luise Schottroff and Wolfgang Stegemann. Theology Today 2 (1987): 302.

____. The Acts of the Apostles. Sacra Pagina, no. 5. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1992.

____. The Gospel of Luke. Sacra Pagina, no. 3. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1991.

____. The LiterGlY Function of Possessions in Luke-Acts. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series, no. 39. Missoula: Scholars Press, 1977.

___. "The Lukan Kingship Parable (Lk. 19:11-27)." Novum Testamentum 24 (1982): 139-59.

____. "On Finding the Lukan Community: A Cautious Cautionary Essay." Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers, ed. Paul J. Achtemeier, 1: 87-100. Missoula: Scholars Press, 1979.

____. Sharing Possessions: Mandate and Symbol of Faith. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981.

____. "The Social Dimensions of Soteria in Luke-Acts and Paul." Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers, ed. Eugene H. Lovering, 520-36. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993. 319 Jones, F. Stanley. "Principal Orientations on the Relations Between the Apocryphal Acts (Acts ofPaul and Acts ofJohn; Acts ofPeter and Acts of John)." Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers, ed. Eugene H. Lovering, 485-505. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993.

Joshel, Sandra R. Work, Identity, and Legal Status At Rome: A Study of Occupational Inscriptions. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1992.

JUlicher, Adolf. An Introduction to the New Testament. Translated by Janet Penrose Ward. New York: G. P. Putman, 1904.

Kalthoff, Albert. Das Christus-Problem: Grundlinien zu einer Sozial-Theologie. Leipzig: Eugen Diederichs, 1904.

____. Die Entstehung des Christentums. Leipzig: Eugen Diederichs, 1904.

Kariamadam, Pau!' The Zacchaeus Story: A Redaction-Critical Investigation. Kerala, India: Pontifical Institute of Theology and Philosophy, 1985.

Karris, Robert J. Review of The Literary Function ofPossessions in Luke-Acts, by Luke Timothy Johnson. Catholic Biblical Quarterly 41 (1979): 653-54.

____,. "The Lukan Sitz im Leben: Methodology and Prospects." Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers, ed. George MacRae, 219-33. Missoula: Scholars Press, 1976.

____,. Luke: Artist and Theologian. New York: Paulist Press, 1985.

____,. "Missionary Communities: A New Paradigm for the Study of Luke­ Acts." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 41 (1979): 80-97.

____,. "Poor and Rich: The Lukan Sitz im Leben." Perspectives on Luke-Acts, ed. Charles H. Talbert, 112-25. Danville: Association of Baptist Professors of Religion, 1978.

____,. What Are They Saying About Luke and Acts? A Theology of the Faithful God. New York: Paulist Press, 1979. 320 ----. "Windows and Mirrors: Literary Criticism and Luke's Sitz im Leben." Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers, ed. Paul 1. Achtemeier, 1: 47-58. Missoula: Scholars Press, 1979.

____,. "Women and Discipleship in Luke." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 56 (1994): 1-20.

Kautsky, Karl. Foundations of Christianity. Translated by 1. F. Mins. New York: S. A. Russell, 1953.

Keck, Leander E. "On the Ethos of Early Christianity." Journal of the American Academy ofReligion 42 (1972): 435-52.

____,. "The Poor Among the Saints in Jewish Christianity and Qumran." Zeitschrijt for die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 57 (1966): 54-78.

____,. "The Poor Among the Saints in the New Testament." Zeitschrijt for die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 56 (1965): 100-29.

Kee, Howard Clark. Good News to the Ends of the Earth: The Theology ofActs. Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1990.

____,. "Jesus: A Glutton and a Drunkard." New Testament Studies 42 (1996): 374-93.

____.. To Every Nation Under Heaven: The Acts of the Apostles. The New Testament in Context. Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 1997.

Keirn, Theodor. History ofJesus ofNazar a Freely Investigated in Its Connection with the Life of Israel and Related in Detail. Translated by Arthur Ransom. London: Williams and Norgate, 1876.

Kelber, Werner H. "Gospel Narrative Theory and Critical Theory." Biblical Theology Bulletin 18 (1988): 130-36.

Kidd, Reggie M. Wealth and Beneficence in the Pastoral Epistles. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertaton Series 122. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990. 321 Kilgallen, John J. "Acts 20:35 and Thucydides 2.97.4." Journal of Biblical Literature 112 (1993): 312-14.

___. A Brief CommentGlY on the Acts of the Apostles. New York: Paulist Press, 1988.

___. "Paul's Speech to the Ephesian Elders: Its Structure." Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 70 (1994): 112-21.

___. "Persecution in the Acts of the Apostles." Luke and Acts, eds. Gerald O'Collins, Gilberto Marconi, trans. Matthew J. O'Connell, 143-60. New York: Paulist Press, 1991.

___. "The Plan of the 'NOMIKOS' (Luke 10:25-37)." New Testament Studies 42 (1996): 615-19.

___. "A Rhetorical and Source-Traditions Study of Acts 2,33." Biblica 7, no. 2 (1996): 178-96.

____,. "Social Development and the Lucan Works." Studia Missionalia 39 (1990): 21-47.

Kim, Kyoung-Jin. Stewardship and Almsgiving in Luke's Theology. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement, no. 155. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998.

Kimball, Charles A. "Jesus' Exposition of Scripture in Luke 4: 16-30: An Inquiry in Light of Jewish Hermeneutics." Perspectives in Religious Studies 21 (1994): 179-202.

Kinman, Brent. "Luke's Exoneration of John the Baptist." Journal of Theological Studies 44 (1993): 595-98.

Klein, Peter. "Die lukanischen Weherufe: Lukas 6:24-26." Zeitschrift for die Neutestamentliche Wissenschafi 71 (1980): 150-59.

Klijn, A. F. J. "The Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles." Vigiliae Christianae 37 (1983): 193-99. 322 ____. "The Question of the Rich Young Man in a Jewish-Christian Gospel." Novum Testamentum 8 (1966): 149-55.

Kloppenborg, John S. "The Dishonoured Master (Luke 16,1-8a)." Biblica 70 (1989): 475-94.

Klostermann, E. Das Lukasevangelium. Handbuch zum Neuen Testament. Tilbingen: 1. C. B. Mohr, 1919.

Knox, Bernard M. W. "Silent Reading III Antiquity." Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 9 (1979): 421-35.

Knox, Wilfred L. The Acts of the Apostles. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1948.

Koch, Klaus. "Der Schatz im Himmel." Leben Angesichts des Todes: Beitrage zum theologischen Problem des Todes, 47-60. Tilbingen: 1. C. B. Mohr, 1968.

Kodell, Jerome. "Luke and the Children: The Beginning and the End of the Great Interpolation (Luke 9:46-56; 18:9-23)." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 49 (1987): 415-30.

___. "Luke's Gospel in a Nutshell (Lk 4:16-30)." Biblical Theology Bulletin 13 (1983): 16-18.

____. "The Theology of Luke in Recent Thought." Biblical Theology Bulletin 1 (1975): 115-44.

Koenig, John. New Testament Hospitality: Partnership with Strangers As Promise and Mission. Overtures to Biblical Theology, no. 17. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985.

Koet, Bart 1. '''Today This Scripture Has Been Fulfilled in Your Ears:' Jesus' Explanation of Scripture in 4,16-30." Five Studies on Interpretation of Scripture in Luke-Acts, 24-55. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1989. 323 ____,. Review of Community and Gospel in Luke-Acts, by Philip F. Esler. Bijdragen 51 (1990): 203-04.

Kraybill, Donald B. and Dennis M. Sweetland. "Possessions in Luke-Acts: A Sociological Perspective." Perspectives in Religious Studies 10 (1983): 215-39.

Kreistzer, Larry J. "Luke 16:19-31 and I Enoch 22." Expository Times 103 (1992): 139-42.

____,. "A Numismatic Clue to Acts 19.23-41: The Ephesian Cistophori of Claudius and Agrippina." Journal for the Study of the New Testament 30 (1987): 59-70.

Kretzmann, P. E. "The Social Implications in the Gospels and in the Book of Acts." Concordia Theological Monthly 11 (1940): 401-08.

Krodel, Gerhard A. Acts. Augsburg Commentary on the New Testament. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1986.

KrUger, Rene. "El Precio Economico del Discipulado: Exegesis Semi6tica de Lucas 18,18-30." Revista Bfblica 49 (1987): 193-207.

Kuenzli, Rudolf E. Review of The Act of Reading, by Wolfgang Iser. Diacritics 10 (1980): 47-56. ___. "Interview: Wolfgang Iser." Diacritics 10 (1980): 57-73.

KUmmel, Werner Georg. "Current Theological Accusations Against Luke." Andover Newton Quarterly 16 (1975): 131-45.

____. "Der Begriff des Eigenturns in Neuen Testament." Heilsgeschehen und Geschichte, 271-77. Marburg: N. G. Elwert, 1965.

Kurz, William S. The Acts ofthe Apostles. Collegeville Bible Commentary, no. 5. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1983.

____. Following Jesus: A Disciple's Guide to Luke and Acts. Ann Arbor: Servant Books, 1984. 324 ____,. "Luke 22:14-38 and Greco-Roman and Biblical Farewell Addresses." Journal ofBiblical Literature 104 (1985): 252-68.

___. "Narrative Approaches to the Luke-Acts." Biblica 68 (1987): 195-220.

____. "Narrative Models for Imitation in Luke-Acts." Greeks, Romans, and Christians: Essays in Honor of Abraham J. Malherbe, eds. Wayne A. Meeks, David 1. Balch and Everett Ferguson. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1993.

____. Reading Luke-Acts: Dynamics of Biblical Narrative. Louisville: Westminster, 1993.

Kfuzinger, Josef. The Acts of the Apostles. New Testament for Spiritual Reading. Translated by Simon Young and Ericka Young. New York: Crossroad, 1981.

Kvalbein, Hans. "Jesus and the Poor: Two Texts and a Tentative Conclusion." Themelios 12 (1987): 80-87.

Lake, Kirsopp. "The Communism of Acts II. And IV.-VI. And the Apointment of the Seven." The Beginnings of Christianity, eds. K. Lake and F. J. Foakes­ Jackson, 5: 140-50. London: Macmillan, 1933.

Lambrecht, Jan. "'Are You the One Who Is to Come, or Shall We Look for Another?' The Gospel Message of Jesus Today." Louvain Studies 8 (1980): 115-28.

___" "The Message of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10: 25-37)." Louvain Studies 5 (1974): 121-35.

___. "Paul's Farewell-Address At Miletus (Acts 20, 17-38)." Les Actes des Apotres, ed. J. Kremer, 307-37. Leuven: University Press, 1979.

Lang, Bernhard. "Gussverbot oder Besuchsverbot? Eine sozialgeschichtliche Deutung von Lukas 10Ab." Biblische ZeitschriJt 26 (1982): 75-79. 325 Larsson, Edvin. "Die Hellenisten und die Urgemeinde." New Testament Studies 33 (1987): 205-25.

____. "Temple-Criticism and the Jewish Heritage: Some Reflections on Acts 6-7." New Testament Studies 39 (1993): 379-95.

Lechler, Gotthard Victor. The Acts of the Apostles: An Exegetical and Doctrinal Commentary. Translated by Charles F. Schaeffer. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1872.

____. The Apostolic and Post-Apostolic Time: Their Diversity and Unity in Life and Doctrines. Translated by A. J. K. Davidson. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1866.

Legasse, Simon. "The Call of the Rich Man." Gospel Poverty: Essays in Biblical Theology, trans. Michael D. Guinan. Chicago: Franciscan Herald Press, 1977.

Lentz, John Clayton. Luke's Portrait of Paul. Society for New Testament Study Monograph Series, no. 77. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993.

Lilla, Salvatore R. C. Clement ofAlexandria: A Study in Christian Platonism and Gnosticism. Oxford Theological Monographs. London: Oxford University Press, 1971.

Liu, Peter. "Did the Lucan Jesus Desire Voluntary Poverty of His Followers?" Evangelical Quarterly 64 (1992): 291-317.

___. "The Poor and the Good News: A Study of the Motif of Euangelizesthai Ptochois in Isaiah 61 and Luke-Acts." Ph.D. Dissertation. Fuller Theological Seminary, 1986.

Loader, William. "Jesus and the Rogue in Luke 16,1-8a: The Parable of the Unjust Steward." Revue Biblique 96 (1989): 518-32.

Loewe, W. P. "Towards an Interpretation of Lk 19:1-10." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 36 (1974): 323-30. 326 Lohfink, Norbert. Option for the Poor: The Basic Principle of Liberation Theology in Light of the Bible. Edited by Duane L. Christensen. Translated by Linda M. Maloney. Berkeley: Bibal Press, 1987.

----. "Von der 'Anawim-Partei' zur 'Kirche der Armen:' Die bibelwissenschaftliche Ahnentafel eines Hauptbegriffs der 'Theologie der Befreiung.'" Biblica 67 (1986): 153-76.

Lohmeyer, Ernst. Soziale Fragen im Urchristentum. Leipzig: QueUe & Meyer, 1921.

Lohse, Eduard. "Das Evangelium fur die Armen." ZeitschriJt for die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 72 (1981): 51-64.

____,. "Missionarisches Handeln Jesu nach dem Evangelium des Lukas." Theologische ZeitschriJt 10 (1954): 1-13.

Longenecker, Richard. "The Acts of the Apostles." John-Acts. Expositor's Bible Commentary 9. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981.

____. "Taking Up the Cross Daily: Luke-Acts." Patterns of Discipleship in the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996.

L5vestarn, Evald. "Paul's Address At Miletus." Studia Theologica 41 (1987): 1- 10.

LUdemann, Gerd. Early Christianity according to the Traditions in Acts: A Commentary. Translated by John Bowden. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989.

Lull, David J. "The Servant-Benefactor As a Model of Greatness (Luke 22:24- 30)." Novum Testamentum 28 (1986): 289-305.

MacDonald, Dennis R. "The Acts of Paul and The Acts of John: Which Came First." Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers, ed. Eugene H. Lovering, 506-10. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993. 327 ____. "The Acts ofPeter and The Acts ofJohn: Which Came First?" Soceity of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers, ed. Eugene H. Lovering, 623-26. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993.

____. "Apocryphal and Canonical Narratives About Paul." Paul and the Legacies of Paul, ed. William S. Babcock, 55-70. Dallas: SMU Press, 1990.

____. The Legend and the Apostle: The Battle for Paul in Story and Canon. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1983.

____. "The Role of Women in the Production of the Apocryphal Acts of Apostles." IliffReview 41 (1984): 21-38.

MacMullen, Ramsay. Christianizing the Roman Empire. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1984.

____. Paganism in the Roman Empire. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1981.

____. Roman Social Relations: 50 B.e. To A.D. 284. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974.

____. "Two Types of Conversion to Early Christianity." Vigiliae Christianae 37 (1983): 174-92.

Maddox, Robert L. The Purpose of Luke-Acts. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments, no. 126. G5ttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982.

Magass, Walter. "Zur Serniotik der Hausfrommigkeit (Lk 12,16-21; die Beispielerzahlung 'vorn reichen Korn-Bauer')." Linguistica Biblica 1 (1971): 2-5.

Maier, G. "Verteilt Jesus die Giiter dieser Erde?" Theologische Beitriige 5 (1974): 149-58. 328 Mailloux, Steven. Interpretive Conventions: The Reader in the Study ofAmerican Fiction. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1982.

____.. "Learning to Read: Interpretation and Reader-Response Criticism." Studies in the LiterGlY Imagination 12 (1979): 93-108.

____. "Reader-Response Criticism?" Genre 10 (1977): 413-31.

Malas, William H. "The Importance of Acts 19:21-22 for the Literary Structure of the Book of Acts." Paper delivered at the Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, San Francisco, CA, November 24, 1997.

Malherbe, Abraham J. "The Christianization ofa Topos (Luke 12:13-34)." Novum Testamentum 38, no. 2 (1996): 123-35.

____. "A Physical Description of Paul." Christians Among Jews and Gentiles: Essays in Honor of Krister Stendahl on His Sixty-Fifth Birthday, eds. George W. E. Nickelburg and George W. MacRae, 170-75. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986.

____. Social Aspects of Early Christianity. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1977.

Malina, Bruce J. Christian Origins and Cultural Anthropolgy: Practical Models for Biblical Interpretation. Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1986.

____. "Interpreting the Bible with Anthropology: The Case of the Poor and Rich." Listening 21 (1986): 148-59.

____. "Limited Good and Social World of Early Christianity." Biblical Theology Bulletin 8 (1978): 162-76.

____. The New Testament World: Insights From Cultural Anthropology. Rev. ed. Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1991.

____. "Patron and Client: The Analogy Behind Synoptic Theology." Forum 4 (1988): 2-32. 329 ____. "Reader-Response Theory: Discovery or Redundancy?" Creighton University Faculty Journal 5 (1986): 55-66.

____. "Reading Theory Perspective: Reading Luke-Acts." The Social World of Luke-Acts: Models for Interpretation, ed. Jerome H. Neyrey, 3-23. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1991.

----. "Wealth and Poverty in the New Testament and Its World." Interpretation 41 (1987): 354-67.

Malina, Bruce J. and Richard L. Rohrbaugh. Windows on the World of Jesus: Time Travel to Ancient Judea. Louisville: Westminster, 1993.

Manek, Jindrich. "Fishers of Men." Novum Testamentum 2 (1957): 138-57 .

---. "The New Exodus in the Books of Luke." Novum Testamentum 2 (1957): 8-23.

Mangatt, George. "The Acceptable Year of the Lord (Lk. 4:16-30)." Bible Bhashyam 9 (1983): 179-86.

Mann, C. S. "Unjust Steward or Prudent Manager?" Exposit01Y Times 102 (1991): 234-35.

Mann, Jacob. "Jesus and the Sadducean Priests, Luke 10:25-37." Jewish Quarterly Review 6 (1915): 415-22.

Manning, C. E. "The Consolatory Tradition and Seneca's Attitude to the Emotions." Greece and Rome 21 (1974): 71-81.

Marshall, 1. Howard. Review of Community and Gospel in Luke-Acts: The Social and Political Motivations of Lucan Theology, by Philip F. Esler. Journal of Theological Studies 39 (1988): 564-66.

___" The Acts of the Apostles. New Testament Guides. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992. 330 ____. The Acts of the Apostles: An Introduction and Commentary. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978.

____. The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text. New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986.

____. "Luke and His 'Gospel.'" Das Evangelium und die Evangelien: Vortrage vom Tubinger Symposium 1982, ed. Peter Stuhlrnacher, 289-308. Ttibingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1983.

____. Luke: Historian and Theologian. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1970.

____. "Luke's View of Paul." Southwestern Journal of Theology 33 (1990): 41-51.

____.. "Recent Study of the Acts of the Apostles." Expository Times 80 (1968-69): 292-96.

____.. "Recent Study of the Gospel According to St. Luke." Expository Times 80 (1968-69): 4-8.

___. "Tradition and Theology in Luke (Luke 8:5-15)." Tyndale Bulletin 20 (1969): 56-75.

Martin, Clarice J. "A Chamberlain's Journey and the Challenge of Interpretation for Liberation." Semeia 47 (1989): 105-35.

Martin, Ralph P. "Salvation and Discipleship in Luke's Gospel." Interpretation 30 (1976): 366-80.

Mather, P. Boyd. "Paul in Acts As 'Servant' and 'Witness. '" Biblical Research 30 (1985): 23-44.

McCormick, B. E. "The Social and Economic Background of Luke." Ph.D. Dissertation. Oxford University, 1960. 331 McCown, Chester C. "The Beatitudes in the Light of Ancient Ideals." Journal of Biblical Literature 46 (1927): 50-61.

McDonald, J. Ian H. "Rhetorical Issue and Rhetorical Strategy in Luke 10.25-37 and Acts 10.1-11:18." Rhetoric and the New Testament: Essays From the 1992 Heidelberg Conference, eds. Stanley Porter and Thomas Olbricht, 59-73. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993.

McGarvey, John William. A Commentary on Acts ofApostles. Cincinnati: Central Book Concern, 1882.

McGee, Daniel B. "Sharing Possessions: A Study in Biblical Ethics." With Steadfast Purpose, ed. Naymond H. Keathley, 163-78. Waco: Baylor University,1990.

McGiffert, Arthur C. "The Historical Criticism of Acts in Germany." The Beginnings of Christianity, eds. F. 1. Foakes-Jackson and K. Lake, 2: 363- 95. London: MacMillan, 1922.

____. A History of Christianity in the Apostolic Age. International Theological Library. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1906.

McGuckin, 1. A. "Christian Asceticism and the Early School of Alexandria." Monks, Hermits and the Ascetic Tradition, ed. W. 1. Sheils, 25-39. Padstow: Ecclesiastical History Society, 1985.

McKnight, Edgar V. The Bible and the Reader: An Introduction to LiteralY Criticism. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985.

____. Post-Modern Use of the Bible: The Emergence of Reader-Oriented Criticism. Nashville: Abingdon, 1988.

____. "Reader-Response Criticism." To Each Its Own Meaning: An Introduction to Biblical Criticisms and Their Application, eds. Stephen R. Haynes and Steven L. McKenzie, 197-219. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1993.

McLachlan, H. St. Luke: The Man and His Work. New York: Longmans, Green & Co., 1920. 332

McLean, John A. "Did Jesus Correct the Disciples' View of the Kingdom?" BibliothecaSacra 151 (1994): 215-27.

Meadors, Gary T. "The 'Poor' in the Beatitudes of Matthew and Luke." Grace Theological Journal 6 (1985): 305-14.

___. "The Poor in Luke's GospeL" Th.D. Dissertation. Grace Theological Seminary, 1983.

Mealand, David L. Review of Property and Riches in the Early Church, by Martin HengeL Theology 78 (1975): 655-56.

____.. Review of Hostility to Wealth in the Synoptic Gospels, by Thomas E. Schmidt. Expository Times 99 (1988): 280-81.

___. Review of Hostility to Wealth in the Synoptic Gospels, by Thomas Ewald Schmidt. Journal of Theological Studies 40 (1989): 346-47.

___. "The Close of Acts and Its Hellenistic Greek Vocabulary." New Testament Studies 36 (1990): 583-97.

___. "Community of Goods and Utopian Allusions in Acts II-IV." Journal ofTheological Studies 28 (1977): 96-99.

___. "Community of Goods at Qumran." Theologische ZeitschriJt 31 (1975): 129-39.

___. "The Paradox of Philo's Views on Wealth." Journal for the Study of the New Testament 24 (1985): 111-15 .

---. "Philo of Alexandria's Attitude to Riches." ZeitschriJt fur die Neutestamentliche Wissenschqft 69 (1978): 258-64.

___. Poverty and Expectation in the Gospels. London: Society for the Promotion of Christian Knowledge, 1980. 333 Menoud, Philippe H. "The Additions to the Twelve Apostles According to the Book of Acts." Jesus Christ and the Faith, trans. Euncie M. Paul, 133-48. Philadelphia: Pickwick Press, 1978.

___. "Jesus and His Witnesses; Observations on the Unity of the Work of Luke." Jesus Christ and the Faith, trans. Euncie M. Paul, 149-66. Pittsburgh: Pickwick Press, 1978.

___. "The Western Text and the Theology of Acts." Jesus Christ and the Faith, trans. Eunice M. Paul, 61-83. Pittsburgh: Pickwick, 1978.

Merkel, Helmut. "Urchristlicher Liebeskommunismus? Zur historischen und theologischen Bedeutung von Apg 2,42-47 und 4:32-37." Das Wort und das Schweigen-Freundesgabe K. Kuenkel, eds. H. G. Poehlmann and B. Vridaghs, 130-42. Osnabrueck, 1992.

Merkelbach, R. "Uber das Gleichnis vom ungerechten Haushalter." Vigiliae Christianae 33 (1979): 180-81.

Metzger, Bruce M. "Seventy or Seventy-Two Disciples?" New Testament Studies 5 (1958-59): 299-306.

___. "St. Paul and the Baptized Lion: Apocryphal Vs. Canonical Books of the New Testament." Princeton Seminary Bulletin 39 (1945): 11-21.

Meyer, Heinrich August Wilhelm. Critical and Exegetical Handbook to the Acts of the Apostles. Edited by William P. Dickson. Translated by Paton J. Gloag. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1877.

Miller, Patrick. "Luke 4: 16-21." Interpretation 29 (1975): 417-21.

Minear, Paul S. "Jesus' Audiences, According to Luke." Novum Testamentum 16 (1974): 81-109.

___. "The Needle's Eye: A Study in Form Criticism." Journal of Biblical Literature 61 (1942): 157-69.

___. "A Note on Luke XXII.36." Melita Theologica 7 (1964): 128-34. 334 Minor, Mark. Literary-Critical Approaches to the Bible: An Annotated Bibliography. West Cornwall, CT: Locust Hill Press, 1992.

Mitchell, Alan C. "The Social Function of Friendship in Acts 2:44-47 and 4:32- 37." Journal ofBiblical Literature 111 (1992): 255-72.

___. "Zacchaeus Revisited: Luke 19,8 As a Defense." Biblica 71 (1990): 153-76.

Moessner, David P. "The 'Leaven of the Pharisess' and 'This Generation:' Israel's Rejection of Jesus According to Luke." Reimaging the Death ofthe Lukan Jesus, ed. Dennis D. Slyva. Frankfurt: Hain, 1990.

____,. "The Meaning of Kathexas in the Lukan Prologue as a Key to the Distinctive Contribution of Luke's Narrative among the 'Many.'" The Four Gospels: FestchriJt Frans Neirynck, ed. F. van Segbroeck, C. M. Tuckett, G. van Belle and 1. Verheyden, 2: 1513-28. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium. Leuven: University Press, 1992.

Moore, Stephen D. "The 'Post-' Age Stamp: Does It Stick? Biblical Studies and Postmodern Debate." Journal of the American Academy of Religion 57 (1989): 543-59.

____. "Are the Gospels Unified Narratives?" Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers, ed. Kent Harold Richards, 443-58. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987.

____. Literary Criticism and Gospels: The Theoretical Challenge. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989.

___.....;. "Luke's Economy of Knowledge." Society ofBiblical Society Seminar Papers, ed. David 1. Lull, 38-56. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989.

____. "Narrative Commentaries on the Bible: Context, Roots, and Prospects." Fontm 3 (1987): 29-62. 335 ____. "Negative Hermeneutics, Insubstantial Texts: Stanley Fish and the Biblical Interpreter." Journal of the American Academy of Religion 54 (1986): 707-19.

____. "Postrnodernism and Biblical Studies: A Response to Robert Fowler." Forum 5 (1989): 36-41.

____. Poststructuralism and the New Testament: Derrida and Foucalt at the Foot ofthe Cross. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994.

____. "Stories of Reading: Doing Gospel Criticism As/With a 'Reader.'" Society of Biblical Society Seminar Papers, ed. Kent Harold Richards, 141-59. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988.

Most, W. G. "Did st. Luke Imitate the Septuagint?" The Synoptic Gospels, eds. Craig A. Evans and Stanley Porter, 215-26. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995.

Mott, S. C. "The Power of Giving and Receiving: Reciprocity in Hellenistic Benevolence." Current Issues in Biblical and Patristic Interpretation, ed. Gerald Hawthorne. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975.

Motto, A. L. "Seneca on Trial: The Case of the Opulent Stoic." Classical Journal 61 (1966): 254-58.

Moxnes, Halvor. The Economy of the Kingdom: Social Conflict and Economic Relations in the Luke's Gospel. Overtures to Biblical Theology. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988.

____. "Patron-Client Relations and the New Community in Luke-Acts." The Social World of Luke-Acts: Models for Interpretation, ed. Jerome H. Neyrey, 241-68. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1991.

____. "The Social Context of Luke's Community." Interpretation 48, no. 4 (1994): 379-89.

____. "Social Relations and Economic Interaction in Luke's Gospel: A Research Report." Luke-Acts: Scandinavian Perspectives, ed. Petri Luomanen, 58-75. Helsinki: Finnish Exegetical Society, 1991. 336 Munck, Johannes. The Acts of the Apostles. Anchor Bible, no. 31. New York: Doubleday, 1967.

___. "Paul, the Apostles, and the Twelve." Studia Theologia 3 (1949): 96- 110.

Navonne, John. "The Lucan Banquet Community." Bible Today 51 (1970): 155- 71.

Neil, William. The Acts of the Apostles. New Century Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973.

Neuhliusler, Engelbert. "Allem Besitz entsagen." Anspruch und Antwort Gottes: Zur Lehre von den Weisungen innerhalb der synoptischen Jesusverkiindigung, 170-85. DUsseldorf: Patmos, 1962.

Neyrey, Jerome. "The Forensic Defense Speech and Paul's Trial Speeches in Acts 22-26: Form and Function." Luke-Acts: New Perspectives From the Society of Biblical Literature Seminar, ed. Charles H. Talbert, 210-24. New York: Crossroad, 1984.

Neyrey, Jerome H. Review of Community and Gospel in Luke-Acts: The Social and Political Motivations of Lucan Theology, by Philip Francis Esler. Catholic Biblical Quarterly 52 (1990): 744-45.

___. "Luke's Social Location of Paul: Cultural Anthropology and the Status of Paul in Acts." History, Literature, and SOCiety in the Book of Acts, ed. Ben Witherington, 251-79. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.

___. "The Symbolic Universe of Luke-Acts: 'They Tum the World Upside Down.'" The Social World of Luke-Acts, 271-304. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1991.

Nickelsburg, George W. E. "Revisiting the Rich and Poor in 1 Enoch 92-105 and the Gospel according to Luke," Society of Biblical Seminar Papers, 579- 605. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998. 337 ___. "Riches, The Rich, and God's Judgment in 1 Enoch 92-105 and the Gospel According to Luke." New Testament Studies 25 (1979): 324-44.

____. Review of The Literary Function ofPossessions in Luke-Acts, by Luke Timothy Johnson. Journal of the American Academy of Religion 47 (1979): 670.

Nobbs, Alanna. "Acts and Subsequent Ecclesiastical Histories." The Book ofActs in Its Ancient Literary Setting, ed. Bruce W. Winter and Andrew D. Clarke, 153-62. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993.

Nolland, John. Luke. 3 vols. Word Biblical Commentary. Dallas: Word, 1989-93.

Oakman, Douglas E. Review of The Economy of the Kingdom: Social Conflict and Economic Relations in Luke's Gospel, by Halvor Moxnes. Biblical Theology Bulletin 20 (1990): 172.

___. "The Buying Power of Two Denarii." Forum 3 (1987): 33-8.

Obermilller, Rodolfo. "La Miseria de un Rico: Un Juicio Neotestamentario-­ Lucas 16:19-31." Los Pobres: Encuentro y Compromiso, 45-66. Buenos Aires: La Aurora, 1978.

O'Fearghail, Fearghus. "The Imitation of the Septuagint in Luke's Infancy Narrative." Proceedings ofthe Irish Biblical Association 12 (1989): 58-78.

O'Hagan, Angelo. '''Greet No One On the Way' (Lk 10, 4b)." Studii Biblici Franciscani Liber Annuus 16 (1965-66): 69-84.

O'Hanlon, John. "The Story of Zacchaeus and the Lukan Ethic." Journal for the Study ofthe New Testament 12 (1981): 2-26.

Omanson, Roger. "Lazarus and Simon." Bible Translator 40 (1989): 416-19.

Osborne, Grant R. "Luke: Theologian of Social Concern." Trinity Journal 7 (1978): 135-48. 338 Osiek, Carolyn. "The New Handmaid: The Bible and the Social Sciences." Theological Studies 50 (1989): 260-78.

___. Rich and Poor in the Shepherd of Hermas: An Exegetical-Social Investigation. Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph, no. 15. Washington: Catholic Biblical Association, 1983.

Oster, Richard. "The Ephesian Artemis As an Opponent of Early Christianity." Jahrbuch for Antike und Christentum 19 (1977): 24-44.

O'Toole, Robert F. "The Literary Form of Luke 19:1-10." Journal of Biblical Literature 110 (1991): 107-16.

____,. "Luke's Position on Politics and Society in Luke-Acts." Political Issues in Luke-Acts, eds. Richard J. Cassidy and Philip J. Scharper, 1-17. Maryknoll: Orbis, 1983.

____. "Poverty and Wealth in Luke-Acts." Chicago Studies 30 (1991): 29- 41.

---. "What Role Does Jesus' Saying in Acts 20,35 Play in Paul's Address to the Ephesian Elders." Biblica 75 (1994): 329-49.

___" "Why Did Luke Write Acts?" Biblical Theology Bulletin 7 (1977): 66.

Outler, Albert C. "The 'Platonism' of Clement of Alexandria." Journal of Religion 20 (1940): 217-40.

Owen, John J. The Acts of the Apostles According to the Text of Augustus Hahn with Notes and Lexicon for the Use ofSchools, Colleges, and Theological Seminaries. New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1875.

Owen-Ball, David T. "Rabbinic Rhetoric and the Tribute Passage (Matt 22:15-22; Mark 12:l3-17; Luke 20:20-26." Novum Testamentum 35 (1993): 1-14. 339 Palmer, Darryl W. "Acts and the Ancient Historical Biography." The Book ofActs in Its Ancient Literary Setting, ed. Bruce W. Winter and Andrew D. Clarke, 1-30. The Book of Acts in Its First Century Setting. Grand Radids: Eerdmans, 1993.

____. "The Literary Background of Acts 1:1-14." New Testament Studies 33 (1987): 427-38.

Parrott, Douglas M. "The Dishonest Steward (Luke 16.1-8a) and Luke's Special Parable Collection." New Testament Studies 37 (1991): 499-515.

Parry, David T. N. "Release of the Captives: Reflections on Acts 12." Luke's Literary Achievement, ed. C. M. Tuckett, 156-64. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995.

Parsons, Mikeal C. "What's 'Literary' About Literary Aspects of the Gospels and Acts." Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers, ed. Eugene H. Lovering, 14-40. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992.

____. "Christian Origins and Narrative Openings: The Sense of a Beginning in Acts 1-5." Review and Expositor 87 (1990): 403-22.

Parsons, Mikeal C. and Richard 1. Pervo. Rethinking the Unity ofLuke and Acts. Philadel phia: Fortress, 1993.

Pax, E. "Der Reiche und das arme Lazarus: Eine Milieustudie." Studii Biblici Fransiscani Liber Annuus 25 (1975): 254-68.

Pease, Authur Stanley. "Notes on Book-Burning." Munera Studiosa, eds. Massey Hamiliton Shepherd and Sherman Elbridge Johnson, 145-60. Cambridge: Episcopal Theological School, 1946.

Perez, Gabriel. "Lucas, Evangelio de Exigencias Radicales." Servidor de la Palabra: Miscelanea Biblica en Honor del P. Alberto Colunga O. P., 319- 67. Salamanca: Editorial San Esteban. 1979.

Perkins, Judith B. "The Acts of Peter As Intertext: Response to Dennis MacDonald." Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers, ed. Eugene H. Lovering, 627-33. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993. 340 Perrin, Nonnan. What is Redaction Criticism? Guides to Biblical Scholarship. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1969.

Pervo, Richard I. Luke's Story ofPaul. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990.

____. "Must Luke and Acts Belong to the Same Genre?" Society of Biblical Society Seminar Papers, ed. David 1. Lull, 309-16. Missoula: Scholars Press, 1989.

____. "Panta Koina: The Feeding Stories in the Light of Economic Data and Social Practice." Religious Propaganda and Missionary Competition in the New Testament World, eds. Lukas Bonnann, Kelly del Tredici and Angela Shancihartinger, 163-94. New York: E. 1. Brill, 1994.

____. Profit with Delight: The Literary Genre of the Acts of the Apostles. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987.

Pesch, Rudolf. "Luke's Fonnulation of the Saying on the Fishers of Men." Translated by G. Mangatt. Bible Bhashyam 2 (1976): 44-59.

Petzke, Gerd. Das Sondergut des Evangeliums nach Lukas. Ziirker Werkkomrnentare zur Bibel. ZUrich: Theologischer Verlag, 1990.

Phillips, Thomas E. "Subtlety as a Literary Technique in Luke's Characterization of Jews and Judaism." Literary Studies in Luke-Acts, ed. Richard P. Thompson, 313-26. Macon: Mercer University Press, 1998.

Philo of Alexandria. Philo, with an English Translation. Translated by F. H. Colson, George Herbert Whitaker and Ralph Marcus, 10 vols. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1929-62.

Pilgrim, Walter E. Review of Hostility to Wealth in the Synoptic Gospels, by Thomas E. Schmidt. Journal ofBiblical Literature 109 (1990): 142-44.

____. Good News to the Poor: Wealth and Poverty in Luke-Acts. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1981. 341 Piper, Ronald A. "Social Background and Thematic Structure in Luke 16." The Four Gospels: Festschrift Frans Neirynck, ed. F. van Segbroeck, C. M. Tuckett, G. van Belle and J. Verheyden, 1637-62. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium. Leuven: University Press, 1992. du Plessis, I. J. "Philanthropy or Sarcasm?-Another Look At the Parable of the Dishonest Manager (Luke 16:1-13)." Neotestamentica 24 (1990): 1-20.

Plfunacher, Eckhard. "Acta-Forschung 1974-1982." Theologie Rundschau 48 (1984): 105-69.

___. "Acta-Forschung 1974-82." Theologische Rundschau 49 (1984): 105- 69.

____,. "Eine Thukydidesreminiszenz in der Apostelgeschichte (Act 20,33-35 --Thuk. II 97,3f.)." Zeitschrift for die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 83 (1992): 270-75.

____,. "Wirklichkeitserfahrung und Geschichtesschreibung bei Lukas." Zeitschrift fur die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 68 (1977): 2-22.

Plummer, Alfred. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Luke. 7th ed. International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1906.

Plunkett, Mark A. "Ethnocentricity and Salvation History in the Cornelius Episode (Acts 10:1-11:18)." Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers, 465-79. Missoula: Scholars Press, 1985.

Porter, Stanley E. "The 'We' Passages." The Book of Acts in Its Graeco-Roman Setting, 2: 545-74, eds. David W. J. Gill and Conrad Gempf, The Book of Acts in Its First Century Setting. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994.

____. "Why Hasn't Reader-Response Criticism Caught on in New Testament Studies?" Journal ofLiterature and Theology 4 (1990): 278-92. 342 Powell, Mark Allan, Compiler. The Bible and Modern Literary Criticism: A Critical Assessment and Annotated Bibliography. New York: Greenwood Press, 1992.

____. "Luke's Second Volume: Three Basic Issues in Contemporary Studies of Acts." Trinity Seminary Review l3, no. 2 (I 991): 69-81.

____. "The Religious Leaders in Luke: A Literary-Critical Study." Journal ojBiblical Literature 109, no. 1 (1990): 93-110.

____. "Types of Readers and Their Revelance for Biblical Hermeneutics." Trinity Seminary Review 12 (1990): 67-76.

___. What Are They Saying About Luke? New York: Paulist Press, 1989.

____. "What Is 'Literary' About Literary Aspects?" Society oj Biblical Literature Seminar Papers, ed. Eugene H. Lovering, 41-50. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992.

Praeder, Susan Marie. "Jesus-Paul, Peter-Paul, and Jesus-Peter Parallelisms in Luke-Acts: A History of Reader Response." Society oj Biblical Literature Seminar Papers, ed. Kent Harold Richards, 23-39. Chico: Scholars Press, 1984.

____. "Luke-Acts and the Ancient Novel." Society oj Biblical Literature Seminar Papers, ed. Kent Harold Richards, 269-92. Chico: Scholars Press, 1981.

____. "Miracle Worker and Missionary: Paul in Acts." Society oj Biblical Literature Seminar Papers, ed. Kent Harold Richards, 107-29. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1983 .

---'. "The Problem of First Person Narration in Acts." Novum Testamentum 29 (1987): 193-218.

Purves, George T. Christianity in the Apostolic Age. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1909. 343 Quesnell, Quentin. "The Women At Luke's Supper." Political Issues in Luke­ Acts, eds. Richard 1. Cassidy and Philip 1. Scharper, 59-79. Maryknoll: Orbis, 1983.

Rackham, Richard Belward. The Acts of the Apostles. 9th ed. London: Methuen and Co., 1922.

____,. How the Church Began. New York: Longsmans, Green & Co., 1906.

Ramsay, William Mitchell. The First Christian Century. London: Hodder and Stoughtn, 1911.

rd ----. St. Paul the Traveller and Roman Citizen. 3 ed. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1897.

Rapske, Brian M. "Acts, Travel and Shipwreck." The Book ofActs in Its Graeco­ Roman Setting, 1-48, eds. David W. 1. Gill and Conrad Gempf, The Book of Acts in Its First Century Setting. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994.

____. The Book ofActs and Paul in Roman Custody. The Book of Acts in Its First Century Setting, no. 3. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994.

Ravens, D. A. S. "Zacchaeus: The Final Part of a Lucan Triptych?" Journal for the Study ofthe New Testament 41 (1991): 19-32.

Reicke, Bo. "Die Fastenfrage nach Luc 5, 33-39." Theologische Zeitschriji 30 (1974): 321-28.

____. "From Strauss to Holtzmann and Meijboom: Synoptic Theories Advanced during the Consolidation of Germany, 1830-70." Novum Testamentum 29 (1987): 1-21.

Reid, Barbara E. Choosing the Better Part? Women in the Gospel of Luke. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1996.

___. "The Ethics of Luke." Bible Today 31, no. 5 (1993): 283-87. 344 Reimer, Ivoni Richter. Women in the Acts of the Apostles: A Feminist Liberation Perspective. Translated by Linda M. Maloney. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995.

Reinhold, Meyer. History of Purple as a Status in Antiquity. Collection Latomus, no. 116. Bruxelles: Society of Latin Studies, 1970.

Resseguie, James L. "Reader-Response Criticism and the Synoptic Gospels." Journal ofthe American Academy ofReligi on 52 (1984): 302-24.

Rice, George E.. "Luke 4:31-44: Release for the Captives." Andrews University Seminary Studies 20, no. 1 (1982): 23-28.

Riddle, Donald Wayne. "Early Christian Hospitality: A Factor in the Gospel Transmission." Journal ofBiblical Journal 57 (1938): 141-54.

Ringe, Sharon H. Jesus, Liberation, and the Biblical Jubilee: Images for Ethics and Christo logy. Overtures to Biblical Theology. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985.

____. "The Jubilee Proclamation in the Ministry and Teaching of Jesus: A Tradition-Critical Study in the Synoptic Gospels and Acts," Ph.D. Dissertation. Union Theological Seminary in New York, 1981 .

----. "Luke 4:16-44: A Protrait of Jesus As Herald of God's Jubilee." Proceedings ofthe Eastern Great Lakes Biblical Society 1 (1981): 73-84.

Riquelme, John Paul. "The Ambivalence of Reading." Diacritics 10 (1980): 75- 85.

Ritter, A. M. "Clement of Alexandria and the Problem of Christian Norms." Studia Patristica 18 (1989): 421-39.

____. "Christentum und Eigentum bei Klemens von Alexandrien auf dem Hintergrund der frlihchristlichen 'Armenfrommigkeit' und der Ethik der kaiserzeitlichen Stoa." Zeitschriftfor Kirchengeschichte 86 (1975): 1-25. 345 Rius-Camps, Josep. "JesUs y el Espiritu Santo conducen la Mision hacia Europa (Hch 16,18,22)." Estudios Biblicos 52 (1994): 517-33.

____. "EI Kai Agtos en los Encabezamientos Lucanos, lUna Fonnula Anaforica?" Filologia Neotestamentaria 2, no. 4 (1989): 187-92.

____. "Las Variantes de la Recension Occidental de los Hechos de los Apostoles VI (Hch 2,41-47)." Filologia Neotestamentaria 8 (1995): 199- 208.

Robbins, Vernon K. "By Land and By Sea: The We-Passages and Ancient Sea Voyages." Perspectives on Luke-Acts, ed. Charles H. Talbert, 215-42. Danville: Association of Baptist Professors of Religion, 1978.

____. "Luke-Acts: A Mixed Population Seeks a Home in the Roman Empire." Images of Empire, ed. Loveday Alexander, 202-21. Sheffield Press: Journal for the Study ofthe Old Testament Press, 1991.

____. "Prefaces in Greco-Roman Biography and Luke-Acts." Perspectives in Religious Studies 6 (1979): 95-103.

____. "The Social Location of the Implied Author of Luke-Acts." The Social World of Luke-Acts, ed. Jerome Neyrey, 305-32. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1991.

Rogge, Christian. Der irdische Besitz im Neuen Testament: Seine Beurteilung und Werschatzung durch Christus und die Apostel. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1897.

Roloff, Jfugen. Hechos de los Apostoles. Translated by Dionisio Minguez. Madrid: Ediciones Cristiandad, 1984.

Romer, Thomas and Jean-Daniel Macchi. "Luke, Disciple of the Deuteronomistic Scholl." Luke's Literary Achievement, ed. C. M. Tuckett, 178-87. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995.

Rordorf, W. "Terra Incognita: Recent Research on Christian Apocryphal Literature." Studia Patristica 25 (1993): 142-58. 346 Rosenblatt, Marie-Eloise. Paul the Accused: His Portrait in the Acts of the Apostles. Zacchaeus Studies. Minneapolis: Liturgical Press, 1995.

Rosner, Brian S. "Acts and Biblical History." The Book of Acts in Its Ancient Literary Setting, ed. Bruce W. Winter and Andrew D. Clarke, 65-82. The Book of Acts in Its First Century Setting. Grand Rapids: Eerdrnans, 1993.

Roth, S. John. The Blind, The Lame, and the Poor: Character Types in Luke-Acts. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement 114. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997.

RUger, Hans Peter. "'Mit welchem Mass ihr messt, wird euch gemessen werden.'" Zeitschriji for die Neutestamentliche Wissenschqft 60 (1969): 174-82.

____. "Mamonas." Zeitschriji for die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 64 (1973): 127-31.

Sabourin, L. '''Evangelize the Poor' (Lk 4:18)." Religious Studies Bulletin 1 (1981): 101-09.

Sandbach, F. H. The Stoics. New York: W. W. Norton, 1975.

Sanders, James A. "From Isaiah 61 to Luke 4." Luke and Scripture: The Function ofSacred Tradition in Luke-Acts, 46-69. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1993.

____. "Isaiah in Luke." Luke and Scripture: The Function of Sacred Tradition in Luke-Acts, 14-25. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1993.

____. "Sins, Debts, and Jubilee Release." Luke and Scripture: The Function ofSacred Tradition in Luke-Acts, 84-92. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1993.

Sandrnel, Samuel. Philo of Alexandria: An Introduction. New York: Oxford Press, 1979.

Scheffler, E. H. "The Social Ethics of the Lucan Baptist (Lk 3:10-14)." Neotestamentica 24, no. 1 (1990): 21-36. 347 Schenk, Wolfgang. "The Roles of the Readers or the Myth of The Reader." Semeia 48 (1989): 55-82.

Schilling, Otto. "Der Collektivismus der Kirchenvater." Theologische Quartalschrijt 114 (1933): 481-92.

____. Reichtum und Eigentum in der altchristlichen Literatur: Ein Beitrag zur sozialen Frage. Berlin: Herderriche Verlagshandlung, 1908.

Schmid, Josef. El Evangelio Segzin San Lucas. 3rd ed. Translated by Mercedes Gonzalez-Habal. Comentario de Ratisbona al Neuvo Testamento, no. 3. Barcelona: Herder, 1981.

Schmidt, Daryl D. "The Historiography of Acts: Deuteronomistic or Hellenistic." Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers, ed. Kent Harold Richards, 417-27. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985.

Schmidt, Thomas Ewald. "Burden, Barrier, Blasphemy: Wealth in Matt. 6:33, Luke 14:33, and Luke 16:15." Trinity Journal 9 (1988): 171-89.

___. "Hostility To Wealth in Philo of Alexandria" Journalfor the Study of the New Testament 19 (1983): 85-97.

____. Hostility to Wealth in the Synoptics. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series, no. 15. Sheffield: Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Press, 1987.

Schmiedel, Paul Wilhelm. "Community of Goods." Encylopedia Biblica, eds. 1. S. Black and T. K. Cheyne, 1: 877-80. New York: Macmillan, 1899-1903.

____. "Die Giitergemeinschaft der altesten Christenheit." Protestantische Monatshefte: Neue Folge der protestantischen Kirchenzeitung, ed. D. Julius Websky, 367-78. Berlin: Georg Reimer, 1898.

Schmithals, Walter. Die Apostelgeschichte des Lukas. Ziircher Bibelkommentare. ZUrich: Theologischer Verlag, 1982. 348 ___. Das Evangelium nach Lukas. ZUricher Bibelkommentare. ZUrich: Theologischer Verlag, 1980.

___. "Lukas-Evangelist der Annen." Theologia Viatorum 12 (1973-74): 153-67.

Schneemelcher, Wilhelm, ed. New Testament Apocrypha. Revised ed. Translated by R McL. Wilson. Vol. II, Writings Relating to the Apostles, by Edgar Hennecke, compiler. Louisville: John Knox, 1992.

Schneider, Gerhard. Die Apostelgeschichte. 2 vols. Herders theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament. Freiburg: Herder, 1980-82.

____. Das Evangelium nach Lukas. Okumenischer Taschenbuchkommentar zum Neuen Testament. Wi.irzburg: Echter Verlag, 1992.

Scholes, Robert. Review of The Implied Reader, by Wolfgang Iser. Diacritics 5 (Fall 1975): 13-15.

SCl:1oles, Robert and Robert Kellogg. The Nature of Narrative. London: Oxford University Press, 1981.

Schottroff, Luise. "Gewaltverzicht und Feidesliebe in der Urchristlichen Jesustradition Mt 5,38-48; Lk 6,27-36." Jesus Christus in Historie und Theologie: Neutestamentliche Festschrift for Hans Conzelmann zum 60. Geburtstag, ed. Georg Strecker, 197-221. Ttibingen: 1. C. B. Mohr, 1975.

____. "Women As Followers of Jesus in New Testament Times: An Exercise in Social-Historical Exegesis of the Bible." The Bible and Liberation: Political and Social Hermeneutics, eds. Norman K. Gottwald and Richard A. Horsley, 453-61. Revised ed. Maryknoll: Orbis, 1993.

Schottroff, Luise and Wolfgang Stegemann. Jesus and the Hope of the Poor. Translated by Matthew J. O'Connell. New York: Orbis, 1986.

Schreck, Christopher 1. "The Nazareth Pericope." L 'Evangele de Luc, ed. F. Neirynck, 399-471. Leuven: Peeters, 1989. 349 Schroeder, Hans-Hartmut. "Haben Jesu Worte uber Armut und Reichtum Folgen fUr das soziale Verhalten?" Studia Theologica 1 (1948): 397-409.

Schumacher, Rudolf. "Ananias und Sapphira (Apg. 5,1-11)." Theologie und Glaube 5 (1913): 824-30.

Schi.irmann, Heinz. Das Lukasevangelium. 2 vols. Herders theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament. Freiburg: Herder, 1969-94.

Schussler Fiorenza, Elizabeth. But She Said: Feminist Practices of Biblical Interpretation. Beacon: Boston, 1992.

Schwartz, Daniel R. "Philo's Priestly Descent." Nourished with Peace: Studies in Hellenistic Judaism in Memory of Samuel Sandmel, eds. Frederick E. Greenspan, Earle Hilgert and Burton L. Mack, 155-72. Chico: Scholars Press, 1984.

Schweizer, Eduard. The Good News According to Luke. Translated by David E. Green. Atlanta: John Knox, 1984.

Scott, Bernard Brandon. "How to Mismanage a Miracle: Reader-Response Criticism." Society ofBiblical Literature Seminar Papers, ed. Kent Harold Richards, 439-49. Chico: Scholars Press, 1983.

___. "A Master's Praise: Luke 16:1-8a." Biblica 64 (1983): 173-88.

Scott, Ernest Findlay. The Beginnings of the Church. New York: Charles Scribner, 1914.

____. The Ethical Teaching ofJesus. New York: Macmillan, 1924.

____. The First Age ofChristianity. New York: Macmillan, 1926.

___....c. Nature of the Early Church. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1941.

Seccombe, David Peter. "Was There Organized Charity in Jerusalem Before the Christians?" Journal of Theological Studies 29 (1978): 140-43. 350

____. Possessions and the Poor in the Luke-Acts. Studien zum Neuen Testament und seiner Unwelt, no. 6. Linz: A. Fuchs, 1982.

Seim, Turid Karlsen. The Double Message: Patterns of Gender in Luke-Acts. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1994.

Sellin, Gerhard. "Lukas als Gleichniserzahler: Die Erzahlung vom barmherzigen Samariter (Lk 10:25-37)." Zeitschrift for die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 66 (1975): 19-60.

____. "Lukas as Gleichniserzahler: Die Erzahlung von barmherziger Samariter (Lk 10:25-37)." ZeitschriJt for die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 65 (1974): 166-89.

Seneca. Moral Essays. Translated by John W. Beare. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1958.

Seng, Egbert W. "Der reiche Tor: Eine Undtersuchung von Lk. Xii, 16-21 unter besonderer Berucksichtigung fonn- und motivgeschichtlicher Aspeckte." Novum Testamentum 20 (1978): 136-55.

Sheeley, Steven. Review of The Economy of the Kingdom, by Halvor Moxnes. Biblical Archaeologist 53 (1990): 179.

____. "Narrative Asides and Narrative Authority in Luke-Acts." Biblical Theology Bulletin 19 (1988): 102-07.

____. "The Narrator in the Gospels: Developing a Model." Perspectives in Religious Studies 16 (1989): 213-23.

Sim, David C. "The Women Followers of Jesus: The Implications of Luke 8:1-3." HeythropJournal30 (1989): 51-62.

____. "What About the Wives and Children of the Disciples? The Cost of DiSCipleship From Another Perspective." Heythrop Journal 35, no. 4 (1994): 371-90. 351 Sloan, Robert B. The Favorable Year ofthe Lord: A Study ofJubilary Theology in the Gospel ofLuke. Austin: Schola, 1977.

Smith, Dennis E. "Table Fellowship As a Literary Motif in the Gospel of Luke." Journal ofBiblical Literature 106 (1987): 613-38.

Sorensen, Villy. Seneca: The Humanist at the Court of Nero. Translated by W. Glyn Jones. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984.

Spencer, F. Scott. "2 Chronicles 28:5-15 and the Parable of the Good Samaritan." Westminster Theological Journal 46 (1984): 317-49.

___. Acts. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997.

____. "The Ethiopian Eunuch and His Bible: A Social Science Analysis." Biblical Theology Bulletin 22 (1994): 155-65.

____. "Neglected Widows in Acts 6:1-7." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 56 (1994): 715-33.

Stegemann, Wolfgang. "Vagabound Radicalism in Early Christianity?: A Historical and Theological Discussion of a Thesis Proposed by Gerd Theissen." God ofthe Lowly: Socio-Historical Interpretations ofthe Bible, eds. Willy Schottroff and Wolfgang Stegemann, trans. Matthew J. O'Connell, 148-68. New York: Orbis, 1984.

____. Zwischen Synagogue und Obrigkeit: Zur historischen Stituation der lukansichen Christen. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991.

Stegner, William Richard. "The Parable of the Good Samaritan and Leviticus 18:5." The Living Text: Essays in Honor of Ernest W Sanders, eds. Dennis E. Groh and Robert Jewett, 27-38. New York: University of America Press, 1985.

Stein, Robert H. Luke. New American Commentary. Nashville: Broadman, 1992.

Steinhauser, Michael G. "The Sayings on Anxieties: Matt 6:25-34 and Luke 12:22-32." Forum 6 (1990): 67-79. 352 Sterling, Gregory E. "Athletes of Virtue: An Analysis of the Summaries in Acts (2:41-47; 4:32-35; 5:12-16)." Journal of Biblical Literature 113 (1994): 689-96.

Stager, Alois. "Annut und Ehelosigkeit: Besitz and Ehe der JUnger nach dem Lukasevangelium." Geist und Leben 40 (1967): 43-69.

____,. Das Evangelium nach Lukas. Geistliche Schriftlesung. Dusseldorf: Patmos-Verlag, 1963.

Stoops, Robert F. "Apostolic Apocrypha: Where Do We Stand with Schneemelcher's Fifth Edition?" Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers, ed. Eugene H. Lovering, 634-41. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993.

___" "Christ As Patron in the Acts of Peter." Semeia 56 (1992): 143-57.

____,. "Departing to Another Place: The Acts ofPeter and the Canonical Acts of the Apostles." Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers, ed. Eugene H. Lovering, 390-404. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1994.

___. "Patronage in The Acts ofPeter." Semeia 38 (1986): 91-100.

____,. "Peter, Paul, and Priority in the Apocryphal Acts." Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers, ed. Eugene H. Lovering, 225-33. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992.

___. "Riot and Assembly: The Social Context of Acts 19:23-41." Journal of Biblical Literature 108 (1989): 73-91.

Strange, W. A. The Problem of the Text ofActs. Soceity for the New Testament Studies Monograph Series, no. 71. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992.

Strem, George C. The Life and Teaching of Lucius Annaeus Seneca. New York: Vantage Press, 1981.

Stuehrenberg, Paul F. "The Study of Acts Before the Reformation: A Bibliographic Introduction." Novum Testamentum 29 (1987): 100-35. 353 Suess, Gloria E. M. "Lilies of the Field." Jerusalem Perspective 46-47 (1994): 18- 23.

Suleiman, Susan R. "Introduction: Varieties of Audience-Oriented Criticism." The Reader in the Text, eds. Susan R. Suleiman and Inge Crossman, 3-45. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1980.

Sweetland, Dennis M. "Discipleship and Persecution: A Study of Luke 12,1-12." Biblica 65 (1984): 61-80.

____. "Following Jesus: Discipleship in Luke-Acts." New Views on Luke and Acts, ed. Earl Richard, 109-23, 178-80. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1990.

____. "Luke the Christian." New Views on Luke and Acts, ed. Earl Richard, 48-63, 168-71. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1990.

____. Our Journey with Jesus: Discipleship According to Luke-Acts. Good News Studies, no. 23. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1990.

Swezey, Charles M. "Luke 18:18-30." Interpretation 37, no. 1(1983): 68-73.

Talbert, Charles H. "The Acts of the Apostles: Monograph or 'Bios?'" History, Literature, and Society in the Book of Acts, ed. Ben Witherington, 58-72. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.

____. Literary Patterns, Theological Themes, and the Genre of Luke-Acts. Missoula: Scholars Press, 1974.

____. Reading Acts: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles. New York: Crossroad, 1997.

____,. Reading Luke: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Third Gospel. New York: Crossroad, 1982.

____. "The Redaction Critical Quest for Luke the Theologian." Jesus and Man's Hope, 171-222. Pittsburgh: Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, 1970. 354 ___. "Shifting Sands: The Recent Study of the Gospel of Luke." Interpretation 30 (1976): 381-95.

Tannehill, Robert C. "'Cornelius' and 'Tabitha' Encounter Luke's Jesus." Interpretation 48, no. 4 (1994): 347-56.

___. "The Lukan Discourse on Invitations (Luke 14.7-24)." The Four Gospels: Festschrift Frans Neirynck, ed. F. van Segbroeck, C. M. Tuckett, G. van Belle, and 1. Verheyden, 2: 1603-16. BibJiotheca Ephermeridum Theologicarum Lovainiensium. Leuven: University Press, 1992.

____.. "The Magnificat As Poem." Journal of Biblical Literature 93 (1974): 263-75.

___. The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts: A Literary Interpretation. 2 vols. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986-90.

____. "The Story of Zacchaeus As Rhetoric: Luke 19:1-10." Semeia 64 (1993): 201-11.

Theissen, Gerd. "Itinerant Radicalism: The Tradition of Jesus Sayings From the Perspective of the Sociology of Literature." Translated by Antionette Wire. Radical Religion 2 (1975): 84-93.

____. The Miracle Stories of the Early Christian Tradition. Edited by John Riches. Translated by Francis McDonaugh. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1983.

Thiselton, Anthony C. "Reader-Response Hermeneutics, Action Models, and the Parables of Jesus." The Responsibility of Hermeneutics, eds. Roger Lundin, Anthony C. Thiselton and Clarence Walhout, 79-126. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988.

Thomas, Christine M. "Word and Deed: The Acts of Peter and Orality." Apocrypha 3 (1992): 125-64.

Thompson, Richard Paul. "Christian Community and Characterization in the Book of Acts: A Literary Study of the Lukan Concept of the Church." Ph.D. Dissertation. Southern Methodist University, 1996. 355

Tiede, David L. Review of The Litermy Function ofPossessions in Luke-Acts, by Luke Timothy Johnson. Journal ofBiblical Literature 98 (1979): 445-46.

____,. Luke. Augsburg Commentary on the New Testament. Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1988.

___" "Luke 6:17-26." Interpretation 40 (1986): 63-68. van Tilborg, S. "An Interpretation From the Ideology of the Text." Neotestamentica 22 (1988): 205-15.

Tinsley, E. J. The Gospel According to Luke. Cambridge Bible Commentary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965.

Tompkins, Jane P. "An Introduction to Reader-Response Criticism." Reader­ Response Criticism, ix-xxvi. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1980.

____,. "The Reader in History: The Changing Shape of Literary Response." Reader-Response CritiCism, ed. Jane P. Tompkins, 201-32. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1980.

___-', Editor. Reader-Response Criticism: From Formalism to Post­ Structuralism. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1980.

Trudinger, L. Paul. "Once Again, Now, 'Who Is My Neighbor?'" Evangelical Quarterly 37 (1976): 161.

Tucker, Jeffrey. Example Stories: Perspectives on Four Parables in the Gospel of Luke. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement, no. 162. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998.

Tuckett, Christopher M. Review of Poverty and Expectation in the Gospels, by David L. Mealand. Theology 82 (1980): 473-75.

____. Luke. New Testament Guides. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996. 356 Tyson, Joseph B. Images ofJudaism in Luke-Acts. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1992.

___. "Jews and Judaism in Luke-Acts: Reading As a Godfearer." New Testament Studies 41 (1995): 19-38.

____. "Source Criticism of the Gospel of Luke." Perspectives on Luke-Acts, ed. Charles H. Talbert, 24-39. Danville: Association of Baptist Professors of Religion, 1978.

____. "Further Thoughts on The Death of Jesus in Luke-Acts." Perkins Journal of Theology 40 (1987): 48-50.

____. "The Jewish Public in Luke-Acts." New Testament Studies 30 (1984): 574-83.

____. "Torah and Prophets in Luke-Acts: Temporary or Permanent?" Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers, ed. Eugene H. Lovering, 539-48. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992.

Ukpong, Justin S. "The Parable of the Shrewd Manager (Luke 16: 1-13): An Essay in Inculturation Biblical Hermeneutic." Semeia 73 (1996): 189-210. van Unnik, W. C. "Luke-Acts, A Storm Center in Contemporary Scholarship." Studies in Luke-Acts, eds. Leander E. Keck and 1. Louis Martyn, 15-32. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980.

Veltmann, Fred. "The Defense Speeches of Paul in Acts." Perspectives on Luke­ Acts, ed. Charles H. Talbert, 243-56. Danville: Association of Baptist Professors of Religion, 1978.

Verheyden, 1. Editor, The Unity of Luke-Acts. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 142. Leuven: University Press, 1999. de Villiers, Pieter G. R. "The Gospel and the Poor: Let Us Read Luke 4." Liberation Theology and the Bible, ed. Pieter G. R. de Villiers, 45-76. Pretoria: University of South Africa Press, 1986. 357 Volckaert, J. "The Parable of the Clever Steward." Clergy Monthly 17 (1953): 332-41.

Vorster, Willem S. "The Reader in the Text: Narrative Material." Semeia 48 (1989): 21-40.

____. "Readings, Readers and the Succession Narrative: An Essay on Reception." ZeitschriJt fur die Alttestamentliche Wissenschafi 98 (1986): 351-62.

Votaw, Clyde Weber. "Primitive Christianity: An Idealistic Social Movement." American Journal of Theology 22 (1918): 54-71.

____. The Primitive Era of Christianity As Recorded in the Acts of the Apostles. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1901.

Wansbrough, Henry. "St Luke and Christian Ideals in an Affluent Society." New Blackfrairs 49 (1968): 582-87.

Watson, Duane F. "The New Testament and Greco-Roman Rhetoric: A Bibliography." Journal of the Evangelical Theological SOCiety 31 (1988): 465-72.

___. "Paul's Speech to the Ephesian Elders (Acts 20.17-38): Epideictic Rhetoric of Farewell." Persuasive Artistry: Studies in New Testament RhetoriC in Honor of George A. Kennedy, 184-208. Sheffield: Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Press, 1991.

Watson, Nigel M. "Was Zacchaeus Really Reforming." Expository Times 77 (1965-66): 282-85.

Weber, Samuel. "Caught in the Act of Reading." Demarcating the Disciplines: Philosophy, Literature, Art, 181-214. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1986.

Wehnert, Jfugen. Die Wir-Passagen der Apostelgeschichte: Ein lukanisches Stilmittel aus Judischer Tradition. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1989. 358 Weiser, Alfons. Die Apostelgeschichte. 2 vols. Okumenischer Taschenbuchkommentar zum Neuen Testament. Wiirzburg: Echter Verlag, 1981-85.

Weiss, Johannes. Die Apostelgeschichte. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrich'sche, 1893.

___. History ofPrimitive Christianity. Edited by Rudolf Knopf. Translated by Frederick C. Grant. New York: Wilson-Erickson, 1937.

____. Jesus' Proclamation of the Kingdom of God. Edited and translated by Richard Hyde Heirs and David Larrimore Holland. Chico: Scholars Press, 1971.

Wellhausen, Julius. Einleitung in die drei ersten Evangelien. 2nd ed. Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung, 1911.

____. Das Evangelium Lucae. Berlin: Georg Reimer, 1904.

____. Kritische Analyse der Apostelgeschichte. Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung, 1914.

____. Noten zur Apostelgeschichte. Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung, 1914.

Wendt, Hans Heinrich. Die Apostelgeschichte. Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar fiber das Neue Testament. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1913.

___. The Teaching of Jesus. Translated by John Wilson. New York: Scribners, 1892.

White, Richard C. "A Good Word For Zacchaeus: Exegetical Comment on Luke 19:1-10." Lexington Theological Quarterly 14 (1979): 89-96.

____,. "Vindication for Zacchaeus?" Expository Times 91 (1979): 21.

Wikenhauser, Alfred. Los Hechos de los Ap6stoles. Barcelona: Herder, 1981. 359 Wilckens, Ulrich. "Urchristlicher Kommunismus: Erwagungen zum Sozialbezug der Religion des Urchristums." Christentum und GeseZlschaft: Ringvorlesung del' EvangeZisch-theologischen Fakultiit del' Universitiit Hamburg, eds. Wenzel Lohff and Bernhard Lohse, 129-44. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1969.

Wilcox, Max. '''The God-Fearers'-A Reconsideration." Journalfor the Study of the New Testament 13 (1981): 102-22.

____. "Judas-Tradition in Acts 1: 15-26." New Testament Studies 19 (1973): 438-52.

Williams, Charles S. C. A Commentary on the Acts on the Apostles. 2nd ed. Harper's New Testament Commentaries. London: A & C Black, 1964.

___. "Luke-Acts in Recent Study." Expository Times 73 (1961-62): 133-36.

Williams, Francis E. "Is Almsgiving the Point of the 'Unjust Steward'?" Journal ofBiblical Literature 83 (1964): 293-97.

Williamson, Ronald. Jews in the Hellenistic World: Philo. Cambridge: University Press, 1989.

___. "Luke-Acts in Recent Study." Expository Times 73 (1961-62): 133-36.

Winslow, Donald F. "Poverty and Riches: An Embarrassment for the Early Church." Studia Patristica 18 (1989): 317-28.

Winter, Bruce W. "The Importance of the Captatio Benevolentiae in the Speeches of Tertellus and Paul in Acts 24:1-21." Journal of Theological Studies 42 (1991): 505-31.

____. Seek the Welfare of the City: Christians As Benefactors and Citizens. First-Century Christians in the Graeco-Roman World. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994.

Winter, Paul. "The Cultural Background of the Narrative in Luke I and II." Jewish Quarterly Review 45 (1954): 159-67,230-42,287. 360 Witherington, Ben. The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998.

____. "On the Road with Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Susanna, and Other Disciples." ZeitschriJt for die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 70 (1979): 243-48.

Wolfson, Harry Austryn. Philo: Foundations ofReligious Philosophy in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1947.

Wright, Addison. "The Widow's Mites: Praise or Lament?-A Matter of Context." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 44 (1982): 256-65.

Wright, 1. R. G. "Fonn and Content in the Moral Essays." Seneca, ed. C. D. N. Costa, 39-69. Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1974.

Wuellner, Wilhelm H. "Is There an Encoded Reader Fallacy?" Semeia 48 (1989): 41-53.

____. The Meaning of "Fishers of Men." New Testament Library. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1967 .

---. "The Rhetorical Structure of Luke 12 in Its Wider Context." Neotestamentica 22 (1988): 283-310.

York, John O. The Last Shall Be First: The Rhetoric of Reversal in Luke. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series, no. 46. Sheffield: Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Press, 1991.

Zahn, Theodor. Das Evangelium des Lukas. 4th ed. Erlangen: A. Deichertsche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1920.

Zeller, Eduard. Die Apostelgeschichte nach ihrem Inhalt und Ursprung kritisch untersucht. Stuttgart: Carl Macken, 1854.

____. The Contents of the Acts of the Apostles Critically Considered. Translated by Joseph Dare. London: Williams and Norgate, 1875-76. 361 Zenos, A. C. "St. Paul As a Business-Man." The Old and New Testament Student 12 (1891): 71-78.

Zillessen, Klaus. "Das Schiff des Petrus und die Geflihrten von andem Schiff." Zeitschriftfor die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 57 (1966): 137-39.

363

INDEX (Authors)

Abogunrin, S. O. 100 Abraham, M. V. 15 Achtemeier, P. 1. 11,275 Aichele, G. 53 Aland, B. 183 Albertz, R. 97 Albright, W. F. 213 Alexander, L. 85, 185 Allison, D. C. 11 Anderson, H. 8,96 Andrews, H. 244 Archer, G. L. 177 Arlandson, 1. M. 121 Arrington, F. L. 192 Arndt, W. 137 Ascough, R. S. 185 Aune, D. E. 185 Aymer, B. C. P. 12 Baarda, T. 126 Baarlink, H. 96 Babcock, W. S. 273 Balch, D. L. 185 Bammel,E. 6, 12,21 Barnouw, D. 74 Barrett, C. K. 84, 184, 185, 186, 187, 189, 192, 195, 196, 197, 198,201,203,204,206,212, 213, 215, 217, 218, 220,221,228,230 Bartsch, H.-W. 108 Bassler, J. 49 Bauckham, R. 11,157,298,273 Bauemfreind, O. 196,207,213 364 Beare, F. W. 126 Beavis, M. A. 154 Behm, J. 199 van Belle, G. 147 Bemile, P. 15 Bentwich, N. 253 Bergquist, J. A. 12 Betz, H. D. 107 Bigelmair, A. 196,199 Bishop, E. F. F. 157 Black, C. C. 219 Black, J. S. 195 Black, Mark 234 Black, Matthew 184 Bloom,E. 49, 74 Bock, D. L. 85,87,91,93,97,101,104,107,109,110, Ill, 112, 114, 116, 120, 122, 123, 124, 126, 127, 130, 132,141,143,144,146,152,156,171,175,177 Booth, W. C. 71,74 Borrat, H. 106 Botha, J. 49, 71, 74 Boughton, L. C. 273 Bovon, F. 18 Braun, W. 145, 147 Bridel, L. 196 Brodie, T. L. 212 Brown, C. 153 Brown,R E. 91,107,108 Brown,RM. 15,91,97 Brown, S. 91,48,84 Bruce, F. F. 184,185,214,216,220,221 Bumstead, A. 5 Bum, G. 137 Burrus, V. 273 Byrne, B. 154 Cadbury, H. J. 21,217 Caemmerer, R R 152 Callen, T. 85 Campbell, C. 6,13 Capper, B. J. 198,204,206 Carey, W. G. 147 Cassidy, R J. 12-15,162,163,175,187 Catchpole, D. R 107 Cave, C. H. 156 365 Celada, B. 166 del Cerro, G. 273 Cheyne, T. K. 195 Christensen, D. L. 16 Clark,E. A. 260,262 Clark, G. W. 198 Clarke, A. D. 183,273 Clement of Alexandria 250, 260-66, 270 Clines, D. 152 Cobb, S. H. 197,199 Colella, P. 153 Combrink, H. J. B. 47,97 Compston, H. F. B. 153 Conzelmann, H. 2, 8, 10, 17, 184, 195, 218, 219, 222, 233, 235, 236 Costa, C. D. N. 244 Cowton, C. J. 200 Craddock, F. B. 46,47 Cranfield, C. E. B. 136 Crosman, I. 48 Crossan, J. D. 135 Culpepper, R. A. 45 Cunningham, S. S. 19 Danker, F. W. 113,117, 126, 141, 157, 162, 178 Davies, S. L. 179 Dawsey, J. M. 89 Degenhardt, H.-J. 1,9,16-18,19,21,22,42 Degenhardt, J. J. 109,196,197 Demel, S. 122 Derrett, J. D. M. 136,138,142,152,175 Dickson, W. 198 Dietrich, W. 96 Dillman, R. 87 Dillon, R. J. 31,84,86,88,142 Dodd,C.H. 109 Domeris, W. R. 108 Donahue, J. R. 1,10,18,21,93 Downing, F. G. 23, 185,250 Drake, L. 90 Dumm,D. 31 Dunn, 1. D. G. 185, 189, 196, 198,202,205,206,207,208,217, 218,222,223,224,225,229,231,233,235,237 Dupont, J. 194 Elliot, J. H. II3,193 366 Ellis, E. E. 84,85,87,90, 102, 108, 110, 120, 122, 123, 137, 149, 151, 152, 156, 16~ 171, 178 Epp,E.1. 184 Erdman, C. R. 155 Ernst, 1. 12 Esler, P. F. 21,27,31 Esser, H. 109, 112 Evans, C. F. 100,103,107,110,111,114,115,118,119,121, 123,127,130,140,144,145,149,153,157,162, 163,166,171,178 Evans, C. A. 89, 143, 165, 176, 177 Exum,C. 228 Farrar, F. W. 108,122,151,152,154,171 Farris, S. 89,91 Ferguson, 1. 260,262 Findley, M. 1. 101, 109, 113, 142 Firth, C. B. 153 Fish, S. 48,74-78 Fitzmyer, 1. A. 84,85,86,87,93,94,99, 100, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 111, 114, 115, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 125, 127, 128, 130, 131, 133, 135, 136, 137, 139, 141, 143, 144, 145, 147, 152, 155, 156, 158,159,160,164,166,169,170,171,175,177 Fletcher, D. R. 153 Flusser, D. 106,109 Foakes-lackson, F. 1. 194,196,199,206,218 ForviIIe, R. 194 Fowl, S. E. 79 Fowler, R. M. 53 Frankem511e, H. 106,109 Freiere, C. E. 91,97 Frein, B. C. 36 Freund, E. 48,71 Gachter, P. 152 Gaebelein, F. 193 Gallagher, E. V. 276 GarIatti, G. 15,96 Gamsey,P. 142 Gasque, W. W. 84,274 Gelin, A. 16 Gempf, C. 183, 190,217 Gerhardsson, B. 136 Gerok,K. 197 Giblin, C. H. 175 367 Gilbert, N. W. 247,256 Gill, D. W. J. 217 Gillman, J. 21 Glenny, W. E. 281 Glornbitza, O. 158 Goldsmith, D. 27 Gonzalez, 1. L. 184, 192, 197, 202, 204, 222 Gordon, 1. S. l37 Gorringe, T. 138 Gottwald, N. 122 Gould,J. B. 247 Grant, F. C. 6 Grant, W.M. 198 Grasser, E. 9 Green, J. B. 12,155,174,177 Greenspan, F. E. 254 Griffin, M. T. 244,245 Gundry, S. N. 15 Guthrie, D. 274 Guttgernanns, E. 86 Haacker, K. 137 Haenchen, E. 2, 7, 184, 185, 189, 192, 193, 196, 203, 204, 206, 207,209,213,214, 219, 220, 221, 222, 230, 231, 233,235,236 Hagner, D. A. 281 Hahn,F. 126 Haller, W. 199 Hamm,D. 170, 171, 172,200,201 Hampden-Cook, E. 152 Hanig, R. 275 Hansack, E. 236 Haraguchi, T. 132,180 Harner, P. B. 46 Harris, M. 1. 281 Harvey, A. E. 127, 133, 134 Hauck, F. 199 Head,P. 183 Heard, W. 21,25,26 Heer, J. 109 Heiligenthal, R. 179 Heirs, R. H. 6,155 Herner, C. J. 183,222,228 Hengel,M. 21, 197 Henrich, S. 31 368 Hernandez, M. C. 244 Hertig, P. 97 Hess, K. 122 Higgins, A. J. B. 84 Hilgert, E. 254 Hills, J. V. 276 Hobbie, F. W. 171 Hock,R. F. 156 van den Hoek, A. 261 Holland, D. L. 6 Hollenbach, P. 15,94 Holtzmann, H. J. 197 Holtzmann, O. 199 Hooley, B. A. 154 Horn,F. W. 6,21,22,25 Horsley, R. A. 122 van der Horst, P. W. 196 Howe,E.M. 281 Hoyt, T. 9,12, 106, 108, 109 Hughes, F. W. 156 Hunkin, J. W. 194 Hunter, D. C. 262 Ireland, D. J. 21, 154 Iser, W. 2,3,43,45-82, 183,268 Jellicoe, S. I31 Jervell, J. 228,274,278 Johnson, L. T. 1, 11,21,34-38,42,85,87,90,93,96,97, 99, 107, 108, Ill, 113, 114, 118, 120, 123, 124, 128, 135, 137, 141, 143, 144, 145, 146, 151, 152, 154, 157, 158, 160, 163, 169, 171, 172, 173, 174, 177, 180, 186, 188, 192, 193, 194,205,206,210,211,214, 217,220,222,223,226,229,235,238 Johnson, S. 225 Jones, F. S. 273,279 Joshel, S. R. 101 Jiilicher, A. 6 Kalthoff, A. 198 Kantzer, K. S. 15 Kariamadam, P. 171 Karris, R. J. 9,10,20-21,38,121 Kautsky, K. 198 Keathley, N. 194 Keck,L. E. 6,9, 184, 198 Kee, H. C. 25,118,184 369 Keirn, T. 6 Kelber, W. H. 79 Kidd, R. 113 Kilgallen, J. J. 19, 135,230, 231 Kim, K.-J. 21

Kimball, C. A. 96 Kinman,B. 94 Klein, P. 108 Klijn, A. F. J. 184 Kloppenborg,J. S. 153, 154 Knight, D. A. 2,9 Knox, B. M. W. 214 Knox, W. L. 195 Koch,K. 14 Kodell, J. 96 Koenig, J. 15,30-34 Koeniger, A. M. 194 Koet, B. J. 96 Kraybill, D. B. 38-41,42 Kreistzer, L. J. 226 Kremer, J. 107,108,114,122,137,140,151,171,228 Krodel, G. A. 189, 193, 196, 197, 200,201,204,207,209,214, 222,229,230,231,232,233,237 KrUger, R. 167 Kuenzli, R. E. 49,50,51,66,71,81 KilmmeI, W. G. 197 Kurz, W. S. 46,84,85,86,88,229 Kiirzinger, J. 198 Kvalbein, H. 1, 16, 108, 159 Lake, K. 194,197,199 Lambrecht, J. 137,228 Lang, B. 133 Larsson, E. 210 Lechler, G. V. 199 Legasse, S. 167 Lentz, J. C. 236 Lilla, S. R. C. 260 Liu, P. 29 Loader, W. 152, 153 Loewe, W. P. 169 Lohff, W. 199 Lohfink, N. 16 Lohmeyer, E. 197, 199 370 Lohse, B. 199 Lohse, E. 12, 16 Longenecker, R. 193,198,218 Lovering, E. 156,273,274 wvestarn, E. 231 LUdemann, G. 196,208,209,215,218,233 Lull, D. J. 79,276 Lundin,R. 46 Macchi, J.-D. 236 MacDonald, D. R. 273,279 Mack, B. L. 254 MacMullen, R. 275 MacRae,G. 11 Mailloux, S. 74, 75 Malas, W.H. 200 Malherbe, A. J. 139, 140 Malina, B. J. 46 Manek, J. 100 Mangatt, G. 97 Mann, C. S. 153, 198 Mann,J. 136 Manning, C. E. 233 Marconi, G. 19 Marshall, I. H. 84,85,87,91,93,94,99, 100, 101, 102, 104, 107, 108,110,111,112,113,116,117,121,122,123, 128, 130, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 142, 143, 146, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 160, 164, 171, 172,176,178,179,198,200,201,203,204,206, 207,209,213,214,215, 218, 220, 221, 222, 223, 225,230,232,233,234,236 Martin, C. J. 214,215 Martin, R. P. 84,274 Martini, C. M. 184 Martyn, J. L. 6,9,184 Masco,A.1. 154 Mather, P. B. 227 Matthews, C. R. 184 McCormick, B. E. 21 McCown, C. C. 108 McDonald, J. I. H. 135 McGarvey, J. W. 199 McGee,D.B. 194 McGuckin, J. A. 262 McKnight, E. V. 10 371 Meadors, G. T. 28, 108 Mealand, D. L. 21,196,236,251,252,253 Meeks, W.A. 228 Menoud, P. H. 183,186,227,238 Merkel, H. 199 Merkelbach, R. 153 Metzger, B. M. 131, 184 Meyer, H. A. W. 198,199 Miller, P. 96 Minear, P. S. 7 Minor,M. 45 Mitchell, A. C. 170, 171, 192, 194 Moessner, D. P. 84 Moore, S. D. 45,46,47,53,71,74,77 Most, W.G. 89 Mott, S. C. 113 Moule, C. F. D. 6 Moxnes, H. 21,30,116 Munck,1. 184,198,204,206,213,230,235 Navonne,J. 15 Neil, W. 196,202,204,207,221,222 Neirynck, F. 96 Neuhiiusler, E. 144, 168 Neyrey,1. H. 21,31,46,116,220,222,224,234,237 Nickelsburg, G. W. E. 23,24,139 Nobbs,A. 185 Nolland,1. 84, 85, 86, 91, 92,93,94,96, 100, 104, 108, 109, 110,112,113,114,115,118,119,120,121,122, 127, 128, 131, 132, 133, 141, 144, 145, 146, 147, 151,152,154,156,159,167,171,177 Oakman, D. E. 136 ObermUller, R. 10,11,159 O'Collins, G. 19 O'Fearghail, F. 89 O'Hagan, A. 133 O'Hanlon, 1. 13,173 Olsen, G. 194 Omanson,R. 156 Osborne, G. R. 21 Osiek, C. 149 Oster, R. 225 O'Toole, R. F. 228,231 Outler, A. C. 262 Owen, 1. 1. 198 372 Owen-Ball, D. T. 175 Paige, T. 152, 153 Palmer, D. W. 185,188 Pao,D. W. 273 Paris, P. 1. 2,9 Parrott, D. M. 153,153 Parry, D. T. N. 219 Parsons, M. C. 84, 184, 188,204 Pax,E. 157 Pease, A. S. 225 Perez, G. 32 Perkins, J. B. 279 Perrin, N. 8 Pervo, R. 1. 84, 184, 185,238,273 Pesch, R. 100 Petzke, G. 84,93,107,122,135,139,140, 141, 15~ 159,171 Phillips, T. E. 156 Philo of Alexandria 250-60,261,270 Pilgrim, W. E. 21,25 Piper, R. A. 152 du Plessis, 1. 1. 86,153 Pliimacher, E. 222,230 Plummer, A. 85,91,101,102,104,105,108, 112, 114, 120,122, 126, 130, 133, 134, 139, 142, 143, 154, 171 Plunkett, M. A. 217 Poehlmann, H. G. 199 Porter, S. E. 46,47,72,89,152,153,222 Powell, M. A. 45,46,47 Praeder, S. M. 185,222 Purves, G. T. 199 Rackham, R. B. 195,197,199 Ramsay, W. M. 233,234,235,237 Rapske, B. M. 217,222,223,235,236,237 Ravens, D. A. S. 171 Reicke, B. 105 Reid, B. E. 122,177 Reimer, 1. R. 205,206,207 Reinhold, M. 222 Renan,E. 196 Resseguie, J. L. 49 Rice, G. E. 96 Richards, K. H. 46,107,185,217 Riddle, D. W. 31 Ringe, S. H. 97 373 Riquelme, J. P. 74 Ritter, A. M. 261,262 Rius-Camps, J. 100, 191 Robbins, V. K. 85,222 Rogge, C. 8 Roloff,1. 189, 191, 193, 196,210, 213,219,220,221,222, 230,235 Romer, T. 236 Rordorf, W. 273 Rosenblatt, M.-E. 227 Rosner, B. S. 185 Roth, S. J. 119 Ruger, H. P. 114 Russel, R. 194 Sabourin, L. 96, 118, 119 Sandbach, F. H. 247 Sanders, 1. A. 96,98 Sandmel, S. 250,254 Scharper, P. 175,187 Scheffler, E. H. 93 Schenk, W. 281 Schilling, O. 195, 199 Schmid, J. 84, 85, 86, 94, 109, 111, 113, 114, 122, 133, 135, 141,146,151,152,154,157,171 Schmidt, D. D. 185 Schmidt, T. E. 24,25,149,154,251,252,257,259 Schmiedel, P. W. 195,196,197 Schmithals, W. 18, 19-20,21,42, 84, 85, 88, 93, 107, 114, 122, 127,137, 140, 144, 156, 171, 196, 199,206,212, 222 Schneemelcher, W. 272 Schneider, G. 184,192,196,198,203,216,218,221,228,235 Scholes, R. 71 Schottroff, L. 21,22,122 Schrenk, C. J. 96 Schroeder, H.-H. 7 Schumacher, R. 195 Schtirmann, H. 84, 87, 93, 94, 102, 104, 108, 109, 11 0, 113, 117, 121, 122, 123, 127, 128, 129, 132, 134, 135, 137 Schussler Fiorenza, E. 276 Schwartz, D. R. 254 Schweizer, E. 85, 88, 93, 99, 100, 107, 108, 113, 117, 122, 123, 137,144,146,156,160,171 Scott, B. B. 154 374 Scott, E. F. 25 Seccombe, D. P. 8, 18,26-30,42 van Segbroeck, F. 84, 147 Seim, T. K. 121 Sellin, G. 135 Seneca 243,244-50,260,261,266,270 Seng, E. W. 156 Sevrin, 1.-M. 126 Sheeley, S. 30 Shepherd, E. 1. 225 Sheils, W. 1. 262 Sim,D. C. 102, 122 Sitarz, E. 196 Sloan, R. B. 28,97 Smith,D.E. 104 Sorensen, V. 244,248 Souter, A. 279 Spencer, F. S. 196,200,207,210,214 Starobinski,1. 51 Stegemann, W. 21-26,27,30,42,93 Stegner, W. R. 136 Stein, R. H. 137 Steinhauser, M. G. 142 Sterling, G. E. 193, 195 Stager, A. 137 Stoops, R. F. 225,226,273,278 Strange, W. A. 184 Strem, G. C. 244 Stuehrenberg, P. F. 194 Stuhlmacher, P. 84 Suess, G. E. M. 142 Suleiman, S. R. 48, 74 Sweetland, D. M. 19,38-41,42 Swezey, C. M. 166, 168 Talbert, C. H. 8, 10,21,84,99, 102, 108, 118, 136, 140, 147, 156, 158, 168, 172, 175, 177, 185, 196,201,205,207, 209,222,226 Tannehill, R. C. 46,90, 92, 114, 122, 127, 142, 147, 171, 172, 173, 185,186,188,191,193,196,219,226,228,231 Theissen, G. 23,31,33,126,180 Thiselton, A. C. 46 Thomas, C. M. 274 Thompson, R. P. 156,219 Tiede, D. 1. 36, 108 375 van Tilborg, S. 144 Tinsley, E. J. 107, 142 Tompkins, J. P. 48,51 Trudinger, L. P. 137 Tucker, J. 135 Tuckett, C. M. 84,98, 141, 147, 180, 185 Turner, V. 38 Tyson, J. B. 46,49,73,87,88,93,156 Ukpong, J. S. 153 van Unnik, W. C. 5,8 Veltmann, F. 234 Verheyden, 1. 147,184,194 de Villiers, P. G. R. 97 Volckaert, J. 152 Vorster, W. S. 46 Votaw,C. W. 198 Vridraghs, B. 199 Walaskay, P. W. 201 Wansbrough, H. 21 Watson, D. F. 228,229,230 Watson, N. M. 171 Weber, S. 48, 74 Wehnert,1. 222 Weigandt, P. 184 Weiser, A. 193,196,198,199,218 Weiss, 1. 196 Wellhausen, J. 195,199 Wendt, H. H. 6 White, R. C. 170,171,172 Wikenhauser, A. 191, 198,204,207,210,216,222,230,233,235 Wikgren, A. 184 Wilckens, U. 199 Wilcox,M. 186 Wilkens, M. J. 153 Williams, C. S. C. 197,218 Williams, F. E. 154 Williamson, R. 253 Winslow, D. F. 265 Winter, B. W. 273 Winter, P. 89, 183 Witherington, B. 122, 185, 186, 196, 198,207,209,213,215,216, 219,220,221,222,223,224,225,226,230,233, 236 Wolfson, H. A. 253 376 Wright, A. 177,178 Wright, 1. R. G. 244 Wuellner, W. H. 101 York,J. O. 28,90 Zahn, T. 16 Zillessen, K. 99 377

Index (Biblical texts)

EXODUS 20:17 165 22:1 172

LEVITICUS 12:18 92 16:8 189 18:5 136 19:18 135 25:10-18 97

NUMBERS 26:55 189 33:54 189

DEUTERONOMY 5:21 165 6:5 135 8:36 95 15 204 15:4 19

JOSHUA 7:1 206 33:54 189

1 SAMUEL 2:1-10 91

2 SAMUEL 12:6 172 378 PSALMS 14:1 141 69:26 189 109:8 189

ISAIAH 26:19 118 28:18-19 118 35:5-6 118 53 214 56:3-5 215 58:6 96 61:1 118 61:1-2 96

EZEKIEL 47:8-10 100

JOHAH 1:7-8 189

MICAH 2:5 189

MATTHEW 3:4 94 4:4 95 5:1-7:29 106 5:1 106 5:3 106 6:25-34 142 6:25-33 142 9:9-10 104 10:9-10 134 10:9 126 10:10 126,134 11 :2-6 96 14:13-21 130 19:20 162 19:21 167 19:22 162, 163, 167 19:23 167 19:29 164 22:15-22 175 379 Matthew (cont.) 22:21 175 26:6-13 120 26:9 120 26:15 178,225

MARK 1:6 94 1:16-18 101 1:18-20 102 2:15 104 6:8 126 6:37 130 10:8 126 10: 17-31 7 10:20 162 10:22 163, 167 10:23 167 10:29 164 12:13 175 12:17 175 14:3-9 120 14:5 120

LUKE 1-4 83,83-98 1:1-4 84-88,221,238 1:1 86,87 1:2 87 1 :3 184 1:4 86 1:5-2:52 88-92 1:5 88 1:5-25 89 1:6 89 1:8-20 90 1:13-17 93 1:13 100 1:26-38 89 1:30 100 1:39-56 89 1:46-55 27,92 1:51-52 91 1:52-53 109 380 Luke (cont.) 1:53 90,91,95, 101 1:54 90 1:57-79 91 1:59 90 1:68-79 90,92 1:77 96 2:1-20 89 2:1 88 2:2 88 2:10 100 2:13-14 91 2:21 90 2:22 89,90 2:23-24 89 2:24 91 2:28-32 91 2:29-32 90,92 2:37 89 2:39-40 89 2:41-50 89,90 2:51-52 89 3:1-21 92-95 3:1 92 3:2 92 3:3 96 3:4-6 92,95 3:5 109 3:10-14 3,24,93,95,98,100,102,111,115,150,190,229, 269 3:10 93 3:11 93 3:12 93, 169 3:13 94 3:14 93,94 3:15-16 102 3:16-17 118 3:16 188 3:22-4:44 95-98 4:2 95 4:4 95 4:16-44 97 4:16-30 8,27,96,97 4: 16-21 96 381 Luke (cont.) 4:18-19 103, 109, 119, 160 4:18 96,101,103,118,119,173,219 4:19 97 4:21 97 4:25-27 98,118 4:29 122 4:31-44 96 4:38 99 4:41 102 4:43 98,119 5-8 83,98-124 5:1-6:16 99-106 5:1-11 99,164,287 5:2 99,105 5:3 105 5:4 99,105 5:5-7 100 5:5 99,105 5:6 105 5:7 101, 105 5:8 100 5:9 105 5:10-11 103 5:10 100, 101,102,105 5:11 18, 103, 163 5:17-26 103 5:20-24 96 5:27-30 169 5:27-29 105, 164 5:27-28 103 5:27 103, 104 5:28-29 104 5:28 18, 103, 163 5:29-39 15 5:29 127 5:30-34 105 5:30-32 104 5:33-39 105 5:33-34 104 5:33 119 6:l3-16 III 6:17-49 27,106-15 6:17-26 108 382 Luke (cont.) 6:17 107, 107 6:20-49 105 6:20-26 109,110 6:20-21 107 6:20 107 6:21 107, 119 6:24-26 108 6:24-25 107 6:27-30 III 6:27 111 6:28-30 112 6:28a III 6:28b 111 6:29-30 111 6:29-30 110 6:29 111 6:30-34 146 6:30 111 6:30a 111 6:30b 111 6:33-34 112 6:35 153 6:35b 113 6:37-38 114 6:38 114 7:1-8:55 115-24 7:1-10 115, 127, 145 7:4 115, 116 7:6 116 7:7 116 7:9 116,169 7:11-17 117 7:18-23 96, 118 7:18-19 118 7:22-23 27 7:22 118, 119 7:33-34 119 7:34 119 7:36-50 15 7:36 119 7:40 171 7:40-46 120 7:41-42 120 383 Luke (cant.) 7:43-44 120 7:44 120 7:45 120 7:46 120 8:1-3 129 8:1b-3 121 8:3 121 8:11-15 123 8:14 123 8:18 123 8:39 86 8:41-42 124 8:43-48 123 8:49-56 124 9-14 83, 125-51 9:1-62 125-31 9:1-6 122,164,179,287 9:1-2 125 9:2 132 9:3 126, 130, 132 9:4 126, 133 9:5 126 9:7-9 129 9:10 129 9:12 130 9:13 130 9:13b 130 9:17 130, 139 9:23-24 121 9:25 131 9:57-61 164 10:1-42 131-38 10:1-16 17 10:1-12 122, 164, 179,287 10:1 132 10:4 126 10:4b 133 10:5-7 134 10:7 134 10:10-12 126 10:17 134 10:25-37 14 10:25 135,137 384 Luke (cont.) 10:26-27 161 10:26 135, 161 10:27 135 10:28 135 10:29-37 137 10:29 135 10:30-35 136,159 10:30-33 158 10:30 136,176 10:34-35 136, 158 10:36 136, 137, 176 10:37 137 10:38-42 15 11:1-12:48 138-45 11:42 138 12:12 140 12:13-14 139 12:13 139 12: 15-21 13 12:15 14, 139, 140, 142, 143 12: 16-20 139, 141 12:16 158 12:17-21 158 12:17 139 12:18 139 12:19 140 12:20 140 12:21 140, 141 12:22-31 142 12:22-23 142 12:22 142 12:32 144 12:33 143, 150, 153, 163 12:33c 144 12:43-48 144 12:48 144 12:59 177 13:1-14:35 145-50 14:1-24 145 14:1-6 15 14:7-24 145 14:7-14 146,147 14:7-11 145 385 Luke (cout.) 14:8 146 14:10 146 14:11 145 14:12-14 146, 147 14:12-13 146 14:13 14,28 14:14 153 14:15-24 147 14:16-24 147 14:16-20 158 14: 18-20 147 14:21-23 158 14:21 28, 147 14:24 148 14:25-35 28 14:25-33 148 14:26 148, 149 14:27 148, 149 14:28 148, 149 14:31 148, 149 14:33 18,148,149,163 15-24 83,150-82 15:1-18:17 151-60 15:1-32 151 15:1-9 151 15:1 151, 169 15: 1-2 147 15:3 151 15:8a 151 15:11-31 159 15:13 151 15:32 172 16: 1-13 153, 154 16:1-9 153, 154 16: 1-8 154, 159 16:1-8a 152,153,154 16:1 152, 158 16:2-8 158 16:3 153 16:4-7 153 16:5-7 154 16:5 152 16:6 152 386 Luke (cont.) 16:8-12 154 16:8 152, 153, 154 16:8b-13 154, 159 16:9-10 155 16:9 153, 155 16:11 155 16:13 155 16:14-18 155 16:14 14, 155 16: 15-18 155 16:15 156, 160 16:16 156 16:19-31 155, 156, 171 16:19-26 158 16:19-23 158 16:21 157 16:24-31 157 16:24 157 16:25 157 16:26 157 16:27-31 158, 159 16:27-28 158 16:29 158 16:30 158 16:31 158, 160 17:3-4 160 17:7-10 33 17:26-30 147 18:9-14 160, 169 18:9 160 18:11-12 160 18:18-19:10 161-73 18:18-30 13,28, 166, 167, 169,287 18:18-23 169 18:18 18, 161, 168 18:19 168 18:20 166 18:21 162, 165, 166 18:22 28,162,164,165,166,167,168,170 18:23-25 169 18:23 163,165,170 18:24-25 163, 167 18:25 167 387 Luke (cont.) 18:26-30 163 18:26 168 18:27 168 18:28 164 18:29 164 18:31-43 169 19:1-10 24,28, 169, 171 19: 1-9 169 19:2 169 19:5 170 19:6 170 19:7 170 19:8 28,170,171,172,173 19:9-10 172 19: 11-24:53 173-80 19:11-27 174 19:41-44 176 19:45-46 178 19:45 176 19:46 176 20:9-19 174 20:20-26 175 20:22 175 20:24-25 175 20:25 175 20:45 178 20:47 177,178 21:1-4 177 21:2-3 28 21:2 177 21:3 177 21:5-6 178 21:5 178 21:12 187 21:22 96 21:37 187 21:39 187 22:5 178 22:14-30 229 22:35 179 22:36 179, 180 22:47-53 179 22:50 179 388 Luke (cont.) 22:52 176 23:2 175 23:13 161 23:35 161 24:10 122 24:20 161 24:25-27 215 24:44-49 31 24:44-47 215 24:47 96 24:48 188 24:49 188

JOHN 6:7 130 21:1-13 100

ACTS 1:1-26 183-90, 1:1-14 185,188 1:1-2 221,238 1:1 85, 184 1:2-3 185 1:3 185 1:4-5 186 1:4 187 1:5 187, 188 1 :6 189 1:8 189 1:9-11 186 1:12 187 1 :15-26 186,209 1:16-20 186 1:16 189 1:18 186 1:20 189 1:21-22 187,210 1:22 187 1:23 205 1:26 189,209 2-4 196 2:1-6:7 190-211,226 2:1-47 190-94, 196 389 Acts (cont.) 2:4 190 2:7 232 2:13-36 190 2:37 190 2:38-40 191 2:38 96 2:41-47 24,25,192,200,201,203 2:41 191 2:42 191 2:44-47 192 2:44-46 191 2:44-45 1,6,166,194,203,206,207,271,287 2:45 192,201 2:46 193 3:1-6:7 200-10 3:1-10 200,201,284 3:2-5 200 3:6 201,213,271 3:8-9 201 3:10 201 3:11 202 3:22 36 3:26 147 4:1-22 202 4:23-31 202 4:27 147 4:32-5:11 202 4:32-37 166, 192 4:32-35 1,6, 194,202,203,207 4:32 35,203 4:34-35 203 4:34 203,204,206 4:36-5:11 203 4:36-37 203,219 4:36 205 4:37 203,205 5-6 25 5:1-11 195,203,205,229,271,287 5:1 206 5:2 206 5:3 206 5:4 204,206,208 5:5 207 390 Acts (cout.) 5:6-10 207 5:12-16 208 5:17-42 208 5:31 96 6:1-7 195,210 6:1-6 211,271 6:1 209 6:3 209,210,211 6:5 210,212,232 6:8-19:41 211-27,226 6:8-8:40 211-15 6:8 211 6:9-10 212 7:2-53 212 7:54-60 212 8 212 8:1-4 212 8:1-3 215 8:3 212 8:5 212 8:6 212 8:9-40 212 8:9-13 212 8:14-19 229 8:14-17 213 8:14 214 8:18 213 8:20 213,215 8:22 213 8:25 214 8:27-40 214 8:28-40 214 8:31 214 8:36-38 215 8-28 37 9:1-15:29 215-21 9: 1-31 215 9:31-43 216 9:1 215 9:27 86 9:32-35 278 9:36 216 9:39 216 391 Acts (cont.) 9:43 217 10:1-11:18 217,221 10 31 10:1-2 217 10:4 217 10:6 217 10:7 217 10:11-18 135 10:22 217 10:23 217 10:32 217 10:43 96 10:48 217 11 :2-3 217 11:12 217 11:28 218 11:29 218 12:2-3 219 12:11 219 12:12 219 12:17 86,219 12:23 220 12:25 220 13:1-2 220 13:7-12 221 13:9 220 13:38 96 13:50 221 14:4 238 14:14 238 15:2 238 15:23-29 221,285 15:29 221 16-18 239 16:4 238 16:10-17 228 16:10-12 222 16:10 238 16:14-15 222 16:15 223 16:16-18 223 16:17 223 16:18 223 392 Acts (cont.) 16:19-22 223 16:30-34 223 16:37 223 16:40 224 17:12 224 18:3 224,230 18:7 224 18:11-17 244 19: 18-19 225 19:21-41 225 19:21-22 200 19:22 200 19:23-41 225 19:24-26 225 19:24-25 229 19:25 225 19:27 226 19:35-41 226 20:1-28:31 227-39 20:1-21:26 228-34 20:1-16 228 20:5-15 228 20:5 228 20:13 228 20:17 228 20:18b-35 228 20:25 228 20:28-32 228 20:33-35 38,229,230 20:34-35 230,235 20:34 271 20:35 230,231,271 20:38 228 21:1-17 228 21:3 231 21:4 231 21:5 231 21:8-10 232 21:8 232 21:9 232 21:10-11 234 21:16 2""jj 21:17 233 393 Acts (cont.) 21:23-24 233 21:23-26 272 21:26 233 21:27-28:31 234-39 21:27-40 234 21 :40-22:21 234 22-26 234 22:2 234 22:25 234 22:26-27 234 23:16 234 24:17 38,41,235,271 24:26 235,272 24:17 235 25:9-12 235 26:13-21 236 26:18 96 28:30 236,272

1 CORINTHIANS 9:14 134

1 TIMOTHY 3:2 210 3:7 210 3:10 210 5:18 134

STUDIES IN BIBLE AND EARLY CHRISTIANITY

1. Hugh M. Humphrey, A Bibliography for the Gospel of Mark, 1954-1980 2. Rolland Wolfe, The Twelve Religions of the Bible 3. Jeane LaPorte, Eucharistia in Philo 4. Peter Gorday, Principles of Patristic Exegesis: Romans 9-11 in Origen, John Chrysostom, and Augustine 5. Marcus J. Borg, Conflict, Holiness and Politics in the Teachings of Jesus 6. Watson E. Mills, Glossolalia: A Bibliography 7. Matthew Baasten, Pride According to Gregory the Great: A Study of the Moralia 8. Douglas E. Oakman, Jesus and the Economic Questions of His Day 9. John Anthony McGuckin, The Transfiguration of Christ in Scripture and Tradition 10. Raymond A. Martin, Syntax Criticism of the Synoptic Gospels 11. Thomas A. Robinson, The Bauer Thesis Examined: The Geography of Heresy in the Early Christian Church 12. John Chrysostom, Commentary on Isaiah 1-8, Duane A. Garrett (trans.) 13. John chrysostom, A Comparison Between A King and A Monk/Against tlte Opponents of the Monastic Life: Two Treatises by John Chrysostom, David G. Hunter (trans.) 14. Amy-Jill Levine, The Social and Ethnic Dimensions of Marthean Salvation History: "Go nowhere among the Gentiles ... " (Mart. 10-5b) 15. Allan Fitzgerald, Conversion Through Penance in the Italian Church of the Fourth and Fifth Centuries: New Approaches to the Experience of Conversion from Sin 16. William Lane Craig, Assessing the New Testament Evidence for the Historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus 17. Jack Lewis (ed.), Interpreting 2 Corinthians 5:14-21: An Exercise in Hermeneutics 18. Raymond A. Martin, Syntax Criticism of Johannine Literature, The Catholic Epistles, and The Gospel Passion Accounts 19. Peter W. Macky, The Centrality of Metaphors to Biblical Thought: A Method for Interpreting the Bible 20. David A. Fiensy, The Social History of Palestine in the Herodian Period: The Land is Mine 21. Dale Miller and Patricia Miller, The Gospel of Mark as Midrash on Earlier Jewish and New Testament Literature 22. Terrance Callan, Psychological Perspectives on the Life of Paul: An Application of the Methodology of Gerd Theissen 23. Carolinne White, The Correspondence (394-419) Between Jerome and Augustine of Hippo 24. J. Arthur Baird, A Comparative Analysis of the Gospel Genre: The Synoptic Mode and Its Uniqueness 25. Isabel Ann Massey, Interpreting The Sermon On The Mount in the Light of Jewish Tradition As Evidenced in the Palestinian Targums of the Pentateuch 26. Tom Robinson and David J. Hawkin, Self-Definition and Self-Discovery in Early Christianity 27. James D. Price, The Syntax Of Masoretic Accents in the Hebrew Bible 28. Dan Cohn-Sherbok, Rabbinic Perspectives On The New Testament 29. Christine Trevett, A Study of Ignatius of Antioch in Syria and Asia 30. Verna E.F. Harrison, Grace and Human Freedom According to St. Gregory of Nyssa 31. Pearse Cusack, An Interpretation of the Second Dialogue of Gregory the Great: Hagiography and St. Benedict 32. Ernst R. Wendland, Comparative Discourse Analysis and the Translation of Psalm 22 in Chichewa, a Bantu Language of South-Central Africa 33. Arthur A. Dewey, Spirit and Letter in Paul 34. James D. Price, Concordance of the Hebrew Accents Used in the Pentateuch, (Five Volumes) 35. Julia M. O'Brien and Fred L. Horton, Jr. (eds.), The Yahweh/Baal Confrontation and Other Studies in Biblical Literature and Archaeology: Essays in Honour of Emmett Willard Hamrick 36. David E. Blattenberger ill, Rethinking 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 Through Archaeological and Moral-Rhetorical Analysis 37. Winsome Munro, Jesus, Born of a Slave: The Social and Economic Origins of Jesus' Message 38. Gunnar H. 0stenstad, Patterns of Redemption in the Fourth Gospel: An Experiment in Structural Analysis 39. Eberhard W. Giiting and David L. Mealand, Asyndeton in Paul: A Text­ Critical and Statistical Enquiry into Pauline Style 40. Translated by Charles S. Kraszewski, The Gospel of Matthew to EyarreAion Kata Mateaion with Patristic Commentaries 41. Jan T. Hallenbeck, The Transferal of the Relics ofSt. Augustine of Hippo from Sardinia to Pavia in the Early Middle Ages 42. Jeffrey S. Lamp, First Corinthians 1-4 in Light of Jewish Wisdom Traditions: Christ, Wisdom and Spirituality 43. Roy R. Jeal, Integrating Theology and Ethics in Ephesians: The Ethos of Communication 44. Keith Augustus Burton, Rhetoric, Law, and the Mystery of Salvation in Romans 7:1-6 45. Sharon Clark Pearson, The Christological and Rhetorical Properties of 1 Peter 46. Donald R. Vance, The Question of Meter in Biblical Hebrew Poetry 47. Thomas F. Martin, Rhetoric and Exegesis in Augustine's Interpretation of Romans 7:24-25a 48. Thomas E. Phillips, Reading Issues of Wealth and Poverty in Luke-Acts