Thiswordof partingatRomeinAc28:28isanticipatedbyasimilar oneatCorinthinAc18:6(Your bloodbeuponyour

1
heads. FromnowonI will gototheGentiles), whichisalsoinActsII. A thirdsuchrejectionoccursat PisidianAntiochin
Ac13:46Sinceyouthrust it fromyou, andjudgeyourselvesunworthyof eternal life, behold, weturntotheGentiles. This
isinActsI, andseemstocontradictthetendencyabovenoted. Butitiseasilyseenthat13:45-49isaninterpolation, sincewhen
it isremoved, aperfectlyconsecutivenarrativeresults, withonlyoneandnot twoinstancesof J ewishagitation. Ac13:45-49
wastheninsertedbywayof harmonizationwithActsII. For similar harmonizinginsertionsintheGospel, see5, below.
Fitzmyer 1/535attributestheinconsistency toaconvenientlyunknownsourcethat hasbeenusedhere.
2
E BruceBrooks
ElijahandLuke
A ResponsetoKloppenborgandVerheyden(ed),
TheElijah-ElishaNarrativeintheCompositionof Luke(2014)
14Feb2014
1. Thisrecent workbringsintofocusseveral questionsfor whichanyrival theoryof thecompositionof Luke
mayfairlybeaskedtoprovideanswers. I takeitasobviousthatElijah(withor withoutElisha, andwhether or not
representedbythenarrativeinKings), isafigureof consequencefor theGospel writers, like(andoftenassociated
with) JohntheBaptist. I herebrieflyrecapitulatemyowntheoryof Luke-Acts, andcommentfromthatperspective
onsomepointssuggestedbytheKloppenborgandVerheydenvolume.
LukeA/B/C
2. Acts. Lukecannot beunderstoodapart fromtheassociatedActs. BeginningwithActs, I notethat thereis
amajor breakbetweentheendof theGospel andtheopeningof Acts. AsEnslinnoted, thedifferencesinthetwo
accountsof theAscensionareextreme. Inone, Jesusvanisheswhiletalkingtohisdisciples; intheother, heinstead
remainswiththemfortydays, andhisascentisaccompaniedbyangelicfigureswhopredicthisfuturecoming. This
isnot anexpansionof thepreviousscene; it isaverydifferent scene. A secondbreakoccursbetweenAc15:33
(whereJudasandSilasaresent off toJ erusalembytheAntiochapostles) and15:35(thebeginningof anarrative
inwhichPaul choosesSilastoaccompanyhimonhisnext mission). Thisisaradical discontinuity, sogreat that
later scribesstruggledtopatchit over (adding, amongother things, verse15:34). It will not dotolabel theseas
aporias, and pass themby. Thequestionis: Whichis morelikely, that anauthor writingcontinuously would
commit them, or that anauthor returningtohiswork[or asecondauthor resumingthework; I donot hereneed
todecidethatquestion] wouldmakewhatinsomerespectsisanewbeginning?All authorial probabilityisinfavor
of thelatter. DividingActsI andActsII inthiswaymatchesthefactthatActsI isnotablymoreSemiticindiction
(thoughtbyTorreytoproveanAramaicoriginal; moreoftenconstruedasanintentional useof Septuagintal style).
ItalsoappearsthatActsI (whichendsinamitybetweenJewishandGentileChristianswhentheJerusalemdecree
isreceived, allowingcommensalitybetweenthem, andwhichalsomakesPeter thefirst apostletotheGentiles,
makinghimstructurallyparallel toPeter) isdifferentintendencyfromActsII, alongapologiafor Christianityas
harmlesstoRome, whichendswiththeJewsrejectingChristianityandPaul declaringthathenceforthonlyGentile
memberswill besought (Ac28:28, Let it beknowntoyouthenthat thissalvationof Godhasbeensent tothe
Gentiles; theywill listen). ThecontrastmightbesummedupasGentilesToo (ActsI, featuringasymmetrical
1
Peter andPaul) versusGentilesOnly (ActsII, withPaul astheonlyApostleof note).
3. Luke. Onesignof astratifiedLukewasnotedbyFitzmyer, whofindsthat Lukeoriginallybeganwiththe
synchronismsof Lk3:1-2, andlackedtheBirthNarrative, Lk1-2(1/310f). Thisimpliestwostages, oneinwhich
theBirthNarrativewaslacking, andasecondinwhichit hadbeenadded. Another signistheNazarethscene,
whichinLukeappearsoutof Markanpositionattheheadof Jesus preachinginGalilee. Fitzmyergivesaplausible
reasonfor therelocation(it presentsincapsuleformthethemeof fulfillment andsymbolizestherejectionthat
will marktheministryasawhole1/71), buttakesnoaccount of theinconcinnityof 4:23, whereJesusisexpected
2
todomoremightyworkslikewhat youdidinCapernaum but at thispoint incanonical Luke, J esushas not
yet been to Capernaum. Further, thatdemandwasnotinheritedfromMark(itisnotinMarksNazarethaccount),
andcanonlyhavebeenaddedatatimewhentheNazarethepisodeoccupieditsMarkanpositioninLuke. Again,
wemustpositonestageinwhichtheLukanNazarethepisodeoccupieditsMarkanpositionandwasenhancedby
theCapernaumremark, andasecondstageinwhichthisepisode, withitsnowproblematicCapernaumremark,
wasmovedfor symbolicreasonstothebeginningof J esus preaching. It wasdoubtlessat that timethat J esus
publicself-identification with the Messiah aspredictedbyIsaiah(Lk4:17-21) wasaddedtotheNazarethscene.
E Bruce Brooks: Elijah and Luke, a Response to Kloppenborg and Verheyden (14 Feb 2014) Page 2
OriginallyfollowedtheCapernaumepisode, which(followingcanonical Lukanorder) islistednext inthussummary.
3
4. Luke and Acts. ThesenewfeaturesinLukeB arealsofoundinActsI. Themiraculousbirthof J esusis
compatiblewiththesupernatural guidanceof theChurchinActsI. ThenotablySemiticcharacter of Lk1-2(which
hasledsometopositaHebreworiginal) ispresentalsoinActsI. Andtheinclusionof theGentilesinLk2:29-32
isextensivelyparalleledinActsI, endingasit doeswithareconciliationbetweenJewishandGentileChristians.
Onthisevidence, wemayassignLukeB andActsI toapproximatelythesamestageintheevolutionof thework.
5. ThequitedifferentGentilesonlythemeof ActsII wasextendedtoActsI bytheadditionof Ac13:45-49
(above, n1). A similar harmonizationwiththeGospel wasachievedbyseveral Gentilesonly passages, among
themtheGoodSamaritan(Lk 10:29-37), whereonly the Samaritan recognizestheobligationof neighborship
whichwaspreviouslyrefusedbyaJ ewishpriest andaJ ewishLevite, andtheTenLepers(Lk17:11-19), where
only the Samaritan (calledinLk17:18thisforeigner) returnstothankJesus. Compatiblewiththeseisasecond
LukanadditiontotheNazarethscene: Lk4:25-27, whereJesuscitestwoScriptural caseswherethefavor of God
wasextended, not to Jews, but to Gentiles. Theseandafewother passagesinLukeshouldthenbereferredtothe
ActsII stratum, whoseGospel counterpart iswhat I havecalledLukeC.
6. Themodel isthen:
LukeA ( <Markplusoriginal material)
Matthew
LukeB ( <MatthewplusActsI; themeof J ewish/GentileChristianharmony)
Birkat ha-Minim[or equivalent event leadingtoseparation]
LukeC (plusActsII; Gentilesonlywill hear theGospel of J esus, or receiveGodsfavor)
7. For convenient later reference, thespecificpassagessofar assignedtoeachstratumof Luke-Actsare:
LukeA LukeB / ActsI LukeC / ActsII
Lk1-2(Birth)
Lk3:1-2(Initial Synchronisms)
Lk4:16, 22-24(NazarethA) Lk4:17-21(NazarethB) Lk4:25-30(NazarethC)
3
Lk4:31-37(Capernaum)
Lk10:29-37(GoodSamaritan)
Lk17:11-19(TenLepers)
Lk24:15(AscensionA) As1:2-11(AscensionB)
Ac1:1-15:33 Ac15:35-end[GentilesOnly]
Ac13:45-49[Pisidianinterpolation]
It isthisperspectivefromwhichthefollowingcommentsaremade.
CommentsonKloppenborgandVerheyden(2014)
This book is of interest for our investigation because the contributors do not all hold the same Synoptic theory
(some accept Q, and others do not; some place Mark before Luke, and others reverse that order). Much of the
discussion in the book centers on passages in Lk 7 and 9, and I shall largely confine my responses to that area.
Note that EEN in this work is short for Elijah-Elisha Narrative. I will first [summarize] or quote something
from this volume (the page number is in parentheses), and then add my own comment after an *asterisk.
8. JohnSKloppenborg. In1927HenryCadburywrote, Complicatedasisthewritingof Lukesworkswhen
psychologicallyanalyzedasasingleevent, . . . (1)
*Exactly. Thepsychologyof aone-eventLukeisnotonlycomplicatedbutcontradictory, andsounfathomable.
Thethree-stageLukeA/B/Cmodel presentlybeingconsideredbytheProjectseekstodeal withthiscomplexity.
9. J ohnSKloppenborg. andsincethelate1980s, theso-calledFarrer hypothesis(FH), onceadvancedby
Enslin, Ropes, andFarrer, hasgainedafootholdintheworksof Michael Goulder andMarkGoodacre. (2)
*It isapleasuretoseeEnslinandRopesmentioned, thoughit couldbemadeclearer that theywerethefirst
toraisethepossibilityof doingwithout Q, longbeforeFarrer madehissuggestion.
E Bruce Brooks: Elijah and Luke, a Response to Kloppenborg and Verheyden (14 Feb 2014) Page 3
10. JohnSKloppenborg. Sincetheadventof redactioncriticismandthewillingnesstoadopttheviewof the
synopticevangelistsascreativeauthors, theProto-Lukehypothesishaslost someof itstraction. (2)
*Theoldview, whichconceivedof Lukeasoperatinginavacuumpopulatedonlybypreviouswrittentexts,
likesomevisitor totheBritishMuseum, copyingverbatimfromscrollsbrought tohimoneat atimebyMuseum
attendants, andotherwiseignorant of Christianity, issoludicrousastobeself-refuting. For onething, it ignores
LukesexperienceasaChristianinAntioch, exposedtoandperhapscontributingtopreachingandinterpretation.
Therecognitionof theSynopticwritersasauthorsisaccordinglywelcome, thoughitneedstospreadmuchfurther.
11. ThomasL Brodie. [TheBrodieProto-Luke, aspublishedin2006andsummarizedhere, extendsasfar as
Acts15. TheElijah-ElishacounterpartstoLukeuptoandincludingLk9areoutlinedonp7-8asthefollowing]:
A. A Great Prophet (Luke1:5-17, 7:1-8:3)
1Kgs16:29-34: Evil couple 1:5-17: Goodcouple
1Kgs17:1-16: Savingthedoomed 7:1-10: Savingthecenturionsslave
1Kgs17:17-24: Raisingawidowsson 7:11-17: Raisingawidowsson
1Kgs22: Prophet Micaiahvindicated 7:18-35: J ohnvindicated
2Kgs4:1-37: Theindebtedwoman 7:36-50: Theindebtedwoman
1Kgs18: Prophets; twelve; Baal worship 8:1-3: Twelve; Acts14:8-18, Falseworship
B. MissionJ ourneytoDeathandSpirit (Luke9:51-10:20, Luke22-Acts2)
2Kgs1-2: Death; settingout for ascent 9:51-56: Settingout for death/ascent
1Kgs19: J ourney: fromdesert toplowing 9:57-62: J ourney: homeless. . . plowing
2Kgs2:16-ch3: Missiontocities, places. War 10:1-20. Missiontocities. Conflict
2Kgs2:7-15: J ordan, assumption, spirit Luke22-Acts2: Death, ascent, Sprit
[omit 22:31-65] . . . (7-8)
*A firstimpression: Theparallelsarenotequallystrong, oppositesaswell assimilaritiesareallowed, andthe
OT passagesdonot occur inthesameorder asintheLuke-Actstext whichtheyaresaidtocontrol.
12. ThomasL Brodie. [Thepresumedsequenceof texts, eachof whichisassumedtoknowall theearlier ones,
isElijah-ElishaNarrative>Proto-Luke>Mark>Matthew>J ohn>Luke-Acts] (10)
*Tomentionnoother differences, our researcheshaveshownstrongLuke>J ohnrelations.
13. ThomasL Brodie. Inattemptingtoaccount for thecomplexrangeof similaritiesanddissimilarities, the
simplest hypothesisisthat Luke, afirst-centurylittrateur, employedawell-knownliteraryprocedureof thefirst
century: heimitatedpart of theLXX account of Elijah. . . hesought, aboveall, toemulatetheolder text. (28)
*Thedeviceof imitatioproperlyappliestoliteraryimitations: aspeechanalogoustoanddrawingononeof
Ciceroor Thucydides, or apoemof Horacebasedonafragment of Alcaeus. Inthesecases, thepleasureof the
hearer isinrecognizingtheprototype, anddelightinginpoetsskill inhandlingit. It may bedoubtedwhether
ChristiansinAntiochassembledtolistentoaliterarytreatment of theStoryof Elijah, andmorelikelythat they
heardthatstoryasreadfromtheSeptuagint. ToconstrueLukeasalittrateur istomistakehisreasonfor writing,
andtoignorehisownstatedreasonfor writing.
14. RobertA Derrenbacker, Jr. Thereseem, then, tobetworelatedissuesthatcouldbeaddressedinresponse
toBrodiestreatment: (1) theextent of theapparent connections: betweenLuke9:51-62andtheEEN, and(2)
whattheseconnectionstell usabout thepotential literaryrelationshipbetweenthetwo. Onthefirst issue, I see
noreasontodenythefour potential connectionsthatBrodieandanumber of other commentatorsnote. . . Since
Brodieadmits that theaffinities between Luke9:51-62 and theEEN arerarely verbatim, hemust rely on
thematicparallelsbetweenthetwotodemonstrateliterarydependence. Thefundamental questiontheniswhether
thesethematicaffinitiesarestrongenoughtosuggest literarydependencebetweenthetwo. . . Theotherslisted
byBrodieareat best it wouldseem, nomorethanliteraryechoes of theEEN.
*Agreed. I addthat theconcept literarydependence isproblematic. Theoperativequestionisbetter framed
aswhether oneauthor is aware of another text, andincorporatesit intohisowntext insuchawaythat thereader
or hearer will recognizeit. ThisismanifestlythecasewithMarksCrucifixionscene, wheretheintendedmeaning
of thesceneislostunlessthereader or hearer addstheOT backgroundmusictotheforegroundMarkannarrative.
Allusionsmadepurelyfor thepleasureof theonemakingthemdonotproperlybelongtotheprovinceof rhetoric.
E Bruce Brooks: Elijah and Luke, a Response to Kloppenborg and Verheyden (14 Feb 2014) Page 4
Thedirect ascensionof Elijahisin2Kings2:11. TheAscensionof Mosesisanoncanonical popular J ewishtext of our
4
period. BesidestheTransfigurationsceneinMark (anditslater Synoptic parallels), thereisinLukeareminiscenceof this
traditionof J esus direct ascent, ashetellstheGoodThief, Thisday shalt thoubewithmeinParadise (Lk 23:24). Such
momentsintheGospelsareintelligibleonlyassurvivalsof anearlyandotherwiseburiedtradition.
15. David Barrett Peabody. If one moves fromthe known to the unknown, in considering the possible
influenceof theElijah-Elishacycleontheworkof theauthor of Luke-Acts, itseemstomethatoneshouldgive,
indescendingorder of importance, firstattentiontoverbal identitiesandsimilaritiesindistinctivewordinginLuke
ActswhencomparedtosuchcomparablewordingasappearsintheElijah-Elishacycle. A secondlevel of attention
shouldbegiventoexplicitreferencestomaterial withintheElijah-Elishacycle, includingusesof thenames, Elijah
andElisha, withinLuke-Acts. A thirdlevel of attentionshouldbegiventoapparent major structural similarities
betweenthetwoworks. A fourthlevel of attentionshouldbegiventoidentical or similar themesinbothpieces
of literature, and theleast subsequent attention should begiven to other potential evidenceof arelationship
between thesetwo works which is less obvious to all readers, such as thetransformation of features in one
document intotheir oppositesintheother, or other typesof modificationfromonetotheother, suchasshifting
emphasisfromphysical relationshipstospiritual or psychological ones. . . Myownsearchfor thenameof Elijah
inthecanonical Gospel of Lukeresultedinatotal of sevenhits infiveseparableliterarycontexts. Thesehits
wereat Luke1:17, 4:25-6bis, 9:7-9, 9:18-20, and9:30-3bis. A searchfor thenameElisharesultedinonlyone
hit, Luke4:27, thesamecontext whichreturnedtwohitsfor thenameElijah, Luke4:25-6bis. It isnotablethat
Professor Brodieonlyconsidersoneof theversesintheimmediatelyprecedinglist, Luke1:17, tobepartof what
hehasattemptedtoisolateandreconstruct asProto-Luke. . . If that ideashouldgainascendency. . . onewould
havetoconcludethattheauthor of canonical Lukeincludedthenameof Elijahsixtimesmorethandidtheauthor
of Proto-Luke.
*Agreed; thepatternof explicit awarenessof ElijahinLukeappearstorefutetheProto-Lukehypothesisas
stated. I findit of interest toseehowtheexplicit mentionsof ElijahinLukepatterninmyLukeA/B/C model:
LukeA
Lk9:7-9. bysomethat Elijahhadappeared [theprophet of theMessiah] <Mk
Lk9:18-20. andotherssay, Elijah [theprophet of theMessiah] <Mk
Lk9:30-33. MosesandElijah / andonefor Elijah [theLawandtheProphets] bis<Mk
LukeB
Lk1:17. inthespirit andpower of Elijah [theprophet of theMessiah]
LukeC
Lk4:25f. went toZeraphathinthelandof Sidon[EEN] bis
Thisshowsanevenstronger patternthantheonementionedbyPeabody: it isonlyinthefinal LukeC that any
mention of Elijahevokesthestory of ElijahinKings. Previously, hefunctionssimplyastheprophet of theEnd,
or, intheTransfigurationscene, asonewho, likeMoses, wastakendirectlytoHeavenathisdeath, andnever saw
thecorruptionof burial. Seenfromthispoint of view, thecasefor theEENasdeterminingtheentireformand
4
contentsof thefirst versionof Lukeappearstobevirtuallynegligible.
16. ThomasL Brodie[addressingapoint raisedby Derrenbacker]. Infact, afurther look at Luke9:51-62
showsthat perhapsit iscloser totheEENthantheinitial statistic(lessthan1per cent) suggests. Of theapprox.
114 Greek words in J esus triplechallengeto disciples (Luke9:57-62) about 30 arefound in theaccount of
ElijahschallengingjourneytoHoreb(1Kings19), andthatdoesnotcountwordsthathaveanequivalentinthe
older text. . .whereElijahwaseffectivelytoldtogoawayandanointtheLordskingsandprophet(1Kgs19:15-
16), theseconddiscipleistoldmoresuccinctlytogoandproclaimGodskingdom(Luke9:60). (62)
*Theword statistics adduced provemerely that both passages arein Greek. Theexistenceof acommon
commandtogoisof lessmomentthanthetripleinsistenceof J esusinLk9:57-62thathisfollowersgiveupall
domesticobligations. Thisfondnessfor compositioninthreesisamarkedtraitof authorial Luke, noticedbymany
commentators. Thereisnoprecedent for it intheEEN. Thejournal of ElijahtoHorebischallenging inthat it
is long(40days) andarduous; J esus challenge tohisprospectivefollowersistoforsakeall else. Theword
occursinneither text, andtheparallel insubstanceisnegligible. If parallelsaretobebuilt out of suchmaterial,
everythingmaybepresentedasaparallel. Thisisnot afit foundationfor aSynoptictheory.
E Bruce Brooks: Elijah and Luke, a Response to Kloppenborg and Verheyden (14 Feb 2014) Page 5
Thisistheauthorsnamefor Q+, or theLogoi of J esus, alost sourcedistinct fromQ.
5
17. ThomasL Brodie[addressingaquestionof Peabody]. Thequestionisdoublyworrying, becauseI had
alreadybecomeconcernedaboutafurther apparentgap theabsenceof anintroductiontoPeter andthetwelve.
Intheproposedversionof Proto-Luke, thetwelvefirstappear aswithJesuswhenheandotherstravel around
(Luke8:1-3), andPeter isfirst mentionedasbeingsent, withJ ohn, topreparethePassover (Luke22:8). (63)
*Theabsenceof narrativecontinuityisfatal totheclaimthat Proto-Lukeisviableasacontinuousnarrative.
18. JohnShelton. Atfirstglance, thehealingof Naamanandthehealingof thecenturionsslave[Lk7:1-10]
mayappear tobenomorerelatedthananyother of thenumeroushealingmiraclesfoundintheBible. . . First, Luke
(andActs) hasadistinctiveElijah-Elishafeelthatiswell documented. InLuke4:25-7, Luke, onthelipsof Jesus,
explicitlyreferstoNaamanandtheWidowof Zeraphath. Thisistheonlytime, outsidetheir original context, that
NaamanandtheWidowof Zeraphatharementionedbynameinthecanon. Thereisnodoubtthat, ingeneral, the
Gospel of Lukeisawareof theElijah/Elishanarrative. (66)
*Noneat all, but thisawarenessisalongwayfromprovingadeterminativerelationship. If I amright about
thesequence, theLk4:27mentionof Naaman(myLukeC) comesafter, notbefore, theCenturionstory(LukeA).
Andthelipsof Jesusdetail provesnothing: thestrategyof all Gospel writersistophraseeverythingasfromthe
lipsof J esus. Onlysocouldanauthorityclaimbeeffectivelymade, andtheseare, aboveall, authoritytexts.
19. J ohnShelton. Lukeuses adramatic inclusiobeginninginLuke4:18as J esus quotes Isa61:1. . . and
endingasJesusimplicitlyquotes4Q5212ii 12(whichisHebrew) intheGreek. . . in7:21. Thisseries, ascriteria
for theonewhoiscomingissummarizedinLuke7:21andonthelipsof J esusinLuke7:22, Goandreportto
J ohnthat whichyousawandheard: theblindreceivesight . . . (68)
*Quiteapart fromthequestionwhether 4:18and7:22belongtothesameLukanstratum, andthequestion
whether quotesfromIsaiahandaQumranHebrewtextdoanythingfor theEENtheoryof Proto-Luke, themodern
fondnessfor findinginclusioor chiasmusacrossgreattextual distancesisprobablyunsound; thesedevices, unless
very simple (the end of a discourse often recapitulates a theme or a tag fromits beginning) are simply not
perceptibletoanaudience. Theymaybefunfor thewriter (andsomeof theundoubtedGematriafeaturesinJohn
maybeascribedtothat motive), but theyarenot rhetoricintheusual senseof deviceswhichpersuadeahearer.
20. Alexander Damm. Brodiesuggeststhat Luke, inalargepart of hisnarrativeof J esusandthecenturion
(Luke7:10), imitatestheSeptuagint narrativeof Elijahsavingawidowandher son(1Kings17:1-16). (88f)
WhileBrodiearguesfor Lukeimitating1Kings17, other scholarsbelievethat Lukeimitatesthenarrativeof
ElishahealingNaamantheSyrian(2Kgs5:1-19). (100). Thisdatafor thetimebeingsuggeststhat it ismore
plausibletoimagineLukeimitate2Kgs5:1-19than1Kgs17:1-16. (112).
*Convincinglyput. Theoutcomeisthat Lukessenseof Elijah/Elishaisgeneral, not sequential.
21. F GeraldDowning. First, itisquiteclear tomanyreadersthatthereareinLukenumerousresonanceswith
theElijah-Elishacycleof narratives, althoughVerheyden. . . cogentlyraisestheproblemsthatariseinassessing
theprobativevalueof suchdetailedobservations, as does Damm, if somewhat moresympathetically. (117)
Thereare, as notedearlier, kinds of episodes suchas imprisonments, trials, threats of punishment, journeys,
debates, riots, eroticencounters(all of whichappear inLuke-Acts), butthereisnoobvioussignof anysetpattern
for their occurrencedeterminedbysomeclassicprecedents. (125)
*Againagreed. TheEENsequenceasdefinedbyBrodieisnotconvincinglydeterminativefor theProto-Luke
sequenceasproposedby Brodie. Weareleft withamorevaguely definedtypological repertoire, uponwhich,
amongother things, theauthor or authorsof Luke-Actsunquestionablydrew. Notonebywhichtheyweredragged.
22. DennisRMacDonald. Lukesprimaryredactional contributiontoLogoisaccount pertainstotwogroups
5
of intermediariesbetweenthecenturionandJ esus. Thefirstconsistsof eldersof theJ ews,whocommendhim
toJ esusasworthyof hisrequest; thesecondgroupLukecallshisfriends, perhapsmeaninghisretainers. The
storyof Naamanhasnoanalogousdramatispersonae, unlessoneconsiderstheletter of theSyriankingtotheking
of Israel ananalogousrecommendationtothehealer. (133f)

E Bruce Brooks: Elijah and Luke, a Response to Kloppenborg and Verheyden (14 Feb 2014) Page 6
*Thedifferencecertainly bears onthemainquestion: Howclosely, andhowconsecutively, is Proto-Luke
modeledon, or determinedby, theEEN. However thismaybe, other forcesarealsoatworkintheCenturionstory.
I herenotethat therearethreeevidencesof J esusspower whichareavailableasananswer toJ ohnsquestion.
Thethirdof themisreducedtoaparenthesis. . .
Lk7:1-10. Healingof theCenturionsBoy
Lk7:11-17. Raisingof theWidowsDeadSon
Lk7:18-20. J ohnsDisciplesTransmit hisQuestiontoJ esus
Lk7:21Inthat hour, hecuredmanyof diseasesandplaguesandevil spirits, andonmany
that wereblindhebestowedsight.
Lk7:22. Andheansweredthem, Goandtell J ohnwhat youhaveseenandheard. . .
. . . but theLukanpropensityfor compositioningroupsof threeneverthelessshowsthrough. Thissuggeststhat
theCenturionStorymaybeoriginal inLuke; that is, part of LukeA. I shall returntothisquestioninamoment.
23. JosephVerheyden[ontheCenturionsServantstory, asparallel tothehealingof Naaman]. Inbothstories
oneissent off toaskfor ahealing. However, in2Kingsit istheantagonist himself pleadinghisowncauseand
directlymeetingwiththeprotagonist; inLukeitisamediator pleadingacauseonbehalf of athirdpartythatwill
never meetwiththehealer andisitself not thevictim. Thesedifferencesarenot smoothedout bypointingtothe
roleof theking. . . [Shelton] speaksinsteadof athird-partyhealer,whichhefurther explainsasahealingdone
byGodthroughanintermediary. But that isnot theissueinLuke7:1-10, whichisrather aninstanceof healing
at adistance. (158)
*Yes, andtheparallel iscorrespondinglyweakened. For asimilar vaguenessintheargumentfor aKings/Luke
relationship, seemycomment at 16* above.
24. JosephVerheyden. Theoverall impression, atleastfor thisreader of Shelton, isthatmuchof theproblems
hementionsareavoidedor disappear if onesimplygivesupontheparallel with2Kingsandinsteadmaybegives
avoicetoQandLukesredactionof healingstorieswhichhetakesover fromMark. (160)
*Mentionof Qasanalternatesourcebringsupthequestionof theoriginalityof theLukanstoryascompared
toitsMattheanparallel, Mt 8:5-13. Thetwoarecloselysimilar, anddiffer chieflyintheuseof intermediariesin
LukebutnotinMatthew. However far backwemaypushthedifferenceintoQ/MtvsQ/Lk, or oneundocumented
oral traditionvsanother, thequestionremains: Whichoneisearlier thantheother?Therecanbeonlyoneanswer,
but argumentsover theoriginalityof theintermediaries featureintheCenturionstoryhavelittletogoon, and
areliabletobeendless. IQPoptsfor theMattheanformasoriginal, butthisisanautomaticresultof theIQPbasic
assumption: that theQformof any passageis theleast commondenominator of its Mt andLk versions. This
determinationhasthusnovalueasacomment onthesetwospecificsayings. SomeMatthewcommentatorscan
befoundto agreewiththeQ judgement; others (egGundry, Davies andAllison) taketheoppositetack; that
MatthewisoperatingonsomethingliketheLukanversion. Therearewell-knownnamesonbothsides. Whatthen?
Insuchasituation, it canbehelpful toconsider other evidence, whichinthiscaseisthefit of bothpassages
intheir respectivecontexts. Thebackgroundsituationisthat, althoughithasbeenrepeatedlysuggestedthatLuke
was composed in morethan onestage, no serious suggestion of that kind has ever been madefor Matthew.
Acceptingthat consensusjudgement, everythinginMatthewshouldreflect a single compositional impulse.
I nowturntoMt8:11-12, I tell you, manywill comefromeastandwest, andsitattablewithAbraham, Isaac,
andJacobintheKingdomof Heaven, whilethesonsof theKingdomwill bethrownintotheouter darkness; there
menwill weepandgnashtheir teeth.ThisinterruptstheCenturionstory(whichconcludesatMt8:13), andithas
aclosecounterpart at Lk13:28-30. Theinterruptionismanifest, eventothosewhoaccept theQverdict that the
Mtversionof theCenturionstoryisprimary (egMNeile105, Theoriginal contextof thesewordsisdoubtful;
Beare208, ThissayingisnotattachedtothemiraclestoryintheLukanversion, anditisprobablethatMatthew
introducedit herebecausehefelt it wasanappropriatecomment ontheremarkablefaithof thisGentile). Then
itisinterruptiveaspartof theCenturionstory, andaccordinglysuspect asanintrusion; somethingnot originally
part of thestory.
E Bruce Brooks: Elijah and Luke, a Response to Kloppenborg and Verheyden (14 Feb 2014) Page 7
If wenowinspecttheLukancontextof thissaying, wefind, followingasequencewhichendswithcomparisons
about theKingdomof Heaven, thissequenceabout whogetsinto theKingdom:
Lk13:22-24. Will thosewhoaresavedbefew? . .
Lk13:25-26. Oncethehouseholder hasrisenupandshut thedoor . . .
Lk13:27. But hewill say, I tell you, I donot knowwhereyoucomefrom. . .
Lk13:28-29 Thereyouwill weepandgnashyour teeth. . .
Lk13:30 Andbehold, somearelast whowill befirst . . .
Thesequenceendshere; another beginswiththeWarningof thePharisees, Lk13:31-33. TheLk13:22f sequence
isthematicallyconsistent. Fromit, MatthewhasapparentlytakenLk13:28-29for hisCenturionstory. And itsfirst
element, Lk13:22-23, tofleshouthisSermonontheMount, atMt7:13-14. And Lk13:26-27for another partof
thatSermon, Mt7:22-23. MatthewsmethodincomposinghisSermonontheMountwascalledagglomerating
byStreeter (Four 250), acharacterizationabundantlyillustratedbythefateof Lk13:22-30inMatthew.
ThenweshouldregardLk 13:22-30as original, andas present inLukeA (whenceit was cannibalizedby
Matthew, cominglater). It thenfollowsthat theLukanversionof theCenturionisoriginal, andpart of LukeA.
Thefinal directionalityhereisthereforeLk>Mt.
25. Conclusion. I haveagreedwithseveral of Brodiescriticsinpreferringadifferentinterpretationof specific
Lukanpassages. I thinktheseobjectionstogether createserioustroublefor theBrodieProto-Luke. Aspublished
in2006, that construct (not herecompletely ondisplay) consists entirely andsolely of passages whichcanbe
construedas mappedonandantitypical to theElijah-Elishanarrativeof 1-2Kings. It includes boththeBirth
Narrativeof Lk 1-2 and theQuestion of J ohn about J esus, Lk 7:18-23. But oneof thestrongest reasons for
separatingtheBirthNarrativefromthefollowingLukannarrativeisthefact that it is at odds withthefollowing
Lukannarrative. Inparticular, inLk 1:44J ohnis not only J esus cousin, but recognizes himprenatally as the
Messiah. Yet inLk 7:18f, J ohnmust sendto J esus to ask if he is infact theMessiah. Thereis no traceof the
convictionof Lk1:44(leapedinthewomb). I feel thatthisinconsistencyalonerefutestheBrodieProto-Luke.
Thisisnot thekindof thingthat anauthor, writingunder asingleimpulse, customarilydoes.
26. But I donot wishtoconcludewithout notingsomeroughagreementsbetweenmyActs-Luketheoryand
theProto-Lukeof Brodieandthat of Streeter/Taylor. For thelatter beginswithLk 3:1andendswithLk 24:53,
whichisthesamecompass(thoughnotthesamecontents) asmyLukeA, andtheformer beginswithLk1:1and
endswithActs15:15, whichisthecompassI assigntoLukeB plusActsI. Brodiesview(10), thatanearlyLuke
precededMatthewandwasknowntoMatthew, andthatasubsequentLukefollowedMatthewandknewMatthew,
ispreciselymyimpressionalso. That ismyexit line.
Thedevil, asBrodiesaysat onepoint inthepresent volume(39), isinthedetail; inthiscase, inthespecifics
of whatbelongstothefirststageof Lukeandwhattothesecond. I offer herewithmyLukeA/B/Cmodel, however
sparselydescribedinthesenotes, assolvingmoreoldproblemsof detail, andraisingfewer newproblemsof detail,
thananyof itspredecessors.
E Bruce Brooks: Elijah and Luke, a Response to Kloppenborg and Verheyden (14 Feb 2014) Page 8
OriginallyfollowedtheCapernaumepisode, which(followingcanonical Lukanorder) islistednext inthussummary.
6
Appendix
For the convenience of the study group, the summary of assigned Lukan passages on page 2 is here updated
to include passages assigned during the course of the above discussion. For more complete inventories, see the
other papers posted on the Alpha Seminar page, http://www.umass.edu/wsp/project/forum/alpha.html.
LukeA LukeB / ActsI LukeC / ActsII
Lk1-2(Birth)
Lk3:1-2(Initial Synchronisms)
Lk4:16, 22-24(NazarethA) Lk4:17-21(NazarethB) Lk4:25-30(NazarethC)
6
Lk4:31-37(Capernaum)
Lk7:1-10(Centurion)
Lk7:11-17(Widowof Nain)
Lk7:18-23(Questionof J ohn)
Lk9:57-62(ThreeFollowers)
Lk10:29-37(GoodSamaritan)
Lk13:22-30(Whowill beSaved)
Lk17:11-19(TenLepers)
Lk24:15(AscensionA) As1:2-11(AscensionB)
Ac1:1-15:33 Ac15:35-end[GentilesOnly]
Ac13:45-49[Pisidianinterpolation]