CHAPTER NINE

ESCHATOLOGY IN LUKE

INTRODUCTORY PROBLEMS

The function of in the has evoked increas- ing interest in recent years for a number of reasons. First, it is a part of a theme, eschatology, that had led, if not dominated, studies since the beginning of this century.l Also, it ac- cords with the emphasis of composition criticism that the evangelists were not merely reporters or editors but theologians in their own right. Finally and more specifically, the eschatology of Luke plays a significant role for an important school of New Testament scholars in their interpretation of early Christian theology and history.2 In the present situation, therefore, it is no longer the simple ques- tion, 'What aspects ofJesus' eschatology did Luke record?' The func- tion of eschatology in Luke has become the function of eschatology for Luke. This raises immediate and difficult problems. To begin with, in this area of inquiry, which must be broadened to include the book of Acts, there is no agreed method by which one discovers what in Luke is 'Lukan.' Some would define 'Lukan' in terms of the evangelist's own innovations. Most would agree that the Gospel of Mark and Q traditions give a touchstone by which variations in parallel Lukan passages may be tested. But, of course, it is not always certain whether Lukan variations are his own de novo

I The literature is voluminous. For a summary selection, cf. L.]. Kreitzer, and in Paul's Eschatology, Sheffield UK 1987; W. Willis, ed., The Kingdom if God in 20th-Century Interpretation, Peabody MA 1987; B. Chilton, ed., 1he Kingdom if God in the Teaching ifJesus, Philadelphia 1984; W. G. Kiimmel, Heilsgeschehen und Geschichte: Gesammelte Aufiiitze 1933-1977, 2 vols., edd. by Erich Grasser and Otto Merk, Marburg 1978; G. E. Ladd, The Presence if the Future, Grand Rapids 21974; O. Cullmann, Salvation in History, London 1967; A. L. Moore, The Parousia in the New Testament, Leiden 1966. 2 E.g. G. Strecker, 1heologie des Neuen Testaments, Berlin 1996, 412-438, and the literature cited; Hans Conzelmann, 1he 1heology if St. Luke, New York 1960 = GT: Die Mitte der Zeit, Tiibingen 51964 (1954); L. E. Keck and]. L. Martyn, edd., Studies in Luke-Acts. FS Paul Schubert, Nashville 1966. Cf. E. E. Ellis, The Gospel if Luke, Grand Rapids 71996, 48ff. 106 CHAPTER NINE or his use of a tradition parallel to Mark3 or of the retained text of a Q episode (that Matthew has altered). Even when a text or set- ting or structure is in Lukan style, one must always reckon with the possibility that Luke is summarizing a source4 or taking over a set- ting or structure from a source.5 The practice of making a radical distinction between a biblical writer's own comment and his use of a source rests, therefore, on a number of uncertainties. It also appears to be an oversimplification of the problem. As a method, it is questionable simply to equate 'pre-Lukan' with 'non-Lukan': The fact that a passage in Luke, or for that matter in a letter of Paul, is derived from an earlier tradi- tion does not in itself make the passage less Lukan or less Pauline. A tradition that is affirmed by an author becomes a part of the author's conception. One must ask a further question: In using a source, to what degree and in what way does the writer make it his own? To ask this does not solve any problems, but it offers a guard against oversimpli- fied answers to a complex question. All of the material in Luke is in some sense 'Lukan' from the fact that Luke includes it. If the traditional material has acquired a Lukan shape, the editorial mate- rial also may have a traditional character. In choosing sources, as much as in ad hoc elaboration, Luke is expressing his concerns and preferences. The investigator, therefore, must be concerned with the whole and cannot limit his attention to Lukan variations from Mark and Matthew, however important they may be.6 Even so, the

3 The agreements of Matthew and Luke against a parallel source in Mark are more extensive than B. H. Streeter observed in The Four Gospels: A Study if Origins (London 1924). See above, Chapter I, 9f. Cf. N. Turner, 'The Minor Verbal Agreements of Mt and Lk against Mk,' in Studia Evangelica I (W 73), edd. K. Aland et at., Berlin 1959, 223-234; E. P. Sanders, The Tendencies if the Synoptic Tradition, Cambridge 1969, 290ff. 4 For example, is Luke's editorial comment in Lk 19: 11 created de novo or is it a summary of matter stated or implied in his tradition(s) of the parables of 'The Pounds' and 'The Rejected King' (Lk 19: l2-27)? 5 Regarding structure, cf. W. R. Farmer, 'Notes on a Literary and Form-Critical Analysis of Some of the Synoptic Material Peculiar to Luke,' NTS 8 (1961-62), 301-316; C. H. Talbert, 'An Anti-Gnostic Tendency in Lucan Christology,' NTS 14 (1967-68), 259-271, especially 260-26l. 6 Luke may include more from a source than the aspect that he is concerned to develop. But since he shows himself quite capable of altering his sources, it is doubt- ful that he includes anything, however traditional, with which he explicitly disagrees. On some compositional tendencies in Luke cf. E. E. Ellis, 'The Making of Narratives in the Synoptic Gospels,' Jesus and the Oral Gospel Tradition, ed. H. Wansbrough,