Abstract
Journeys have always been a favourite subject of literature. In a way, what occurs in a journey matches what happens to the reader of a narrative. There is an end, though in medias res it is not evident how it will turn out. Adventure and novelty arise from displacements and interruptions of the predictable path, and yet a certain secure purpose keeps things on track. As in journeys, so in narratives we proceed anticipating a satisfactory conclusion: there is a point of arrival, a coming home.1 Otherwise, instead of a journey we have a mere series of incidents, and instead of a narrative, a random collection of anecdotes.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
See Frank Kermode, The Sense of an Ending: Studies in the Theory of Fiction (New York: Oxford University Press, 1967).
Wolfgang Iser, The Act of Reading: A Theory of Aesthetic Response (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1978) stresses the reader’s contribution to the process of interpretation. See p. 19: ‘an interpreter can no longer claim to teach the reader the meaning of the text, for without a subjective contribution and a context there is no such thing’.
Thorleif Boman, Hebrew Thought Compared with Greek, trans. Jules L. Moreau from the 2nd German edn, 1954 (New York: Norton, 1970).
Some of Boman’s interpretations have been questioned by James Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Language (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1960),
but Walter J. Ong, The Presence of the Word. Some Prologomena for Cultural and Religious History (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1967) pp. 3–4, counters Barr with the observation that Boman’s main ‘contrast itself remains clear enough’.
Erich Auerbach, Mimesis, trans. Willard Trask (New York: Doubleday, 1957). I summarise Auerbach here, especially pp. 1ff.
Gabriel Josipovici, ‘The Bible: Dialogue and Distance’, ed. Michael Wadsworth, Ways of Reading the Bible (Sussex: Harvester Press, 1981) p. 142, sees the stress on background, crisis and tension as reflecting Auerbach’s German Protestantism. Josipovici maintains that the biblical narrative moves ‘without fuss’, trusting ‘that all will be well’. It is the reader who wants to fill the gaps in the story: we want to know what Abraham feels, and why God is doing this. Still, I feel Auerbach is correct to stress the historical moment of choice.
For a concise outline, see Norman Perrin and Dennis C. Duling. The New Testament. An Introduction (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 2nd edn, 1982) pp. 293ff.
See especially Charles H. Talbert, Literary Patterns, Theological Themes, and the Genre of Luke-Acts (Missoula, Montana: Society for Biblical Literature and Scholars Press, 1974).
Salvation history is an important concept in Lucan studies. H. Conzelmann, The Theology of St. Luke, trans. Geoffrey Buswell (London: Faber, 1960), uses the term ‘Heilgeschichte’, translated as ‘redemptive history’, but Perrin, The New Testament: an Introduction, p. 301, among other critics, prefers ‘salvation history’. Conzelmann’s key work stresses Luke’s delay of the parousia, and divides salvation history into three periods: Israel, Jesus, and the Church.
Ernst Haenchen, The Acts of the Apostles: a Commentary, trans. from the 14th German edn (1965) by Bernard Noble and Gerald Shinn, revised by R. McL. Wilson (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1971), also a ground-breaking work, is in the general spirit of Conzelmann, and interprets Acts as recording developments between the period of Jesus and the period of the church. Both Conzelmann and Haenchen have been revised by more recent scholars, but their work is basic.
For an account of more recent opinion, see I. Howard Marshall, Luke: Historian and Theologian (Exeter: Paternoster Press, 1979; 1st edn 1970) pp. 77ff.
Vernon K. Robbins, ‘By Land and by Sea: the We-Passages and Ancient Sea Voyages’, ed. Charles H. Talbert, Perspectives in Luke-Acts (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1978) pp. 215–42. I summarise Robbins, pp. 215–6.
See Alfred Plummer, The Gospel According to S. Luke (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 3rd edn, 1900) p. 263: ‘A Hebraism. … It implies fixedness of purpose, especially in the prospect of difficulty or danger.’
K. L. Schmidt, Der Rahmann der Geschichte Jesu (Berlin: 1919) p. 269, translated in Conzelmann, The Theology of St. Luke, p. 61, and cited by Donald R. Miesner, ‘The Missionary Journeys Narrative: Patterns and Implications’, ed. Charles H. Talbert, Perspectives in Luke-Acts, p. 200.
See also Arland J. Hultgren, ‘Interpreting the Gospel of Luke’, ed. James Luther Mays, Interpreting the Gospels (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1981) p. 190: ‘there is no real progress towards Jerusalem’.
Norval Geldenhuys, Commentary on the Gospel of Luke (London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1950) p. 291: ‘This is in many respects the most important part of the third Gospel because the major portion of its contents does not occur in the three other Gospels.’
For instance, W. M. Ramsay, The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1915),
and A. N. Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1963), indicate that Luke is reliable on matters of geography and politics.
Ward Gasque, A History of the Criticism of the Acts of the Apostles (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1975) p. 138, concludes: ‘indeed it may almost be said, all scholars who have studied Ramsay’s work closely — have agreed that his major thesis has been proven’.
Luke had some contact with Johannine tradition, though it is not clear that he knew John’s gospel. See C. H. Dodd, Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge University Press, 1963) p. 263, argues that ‘behind the Fourth Gospel lies an ancient tradition independent of the other gospels’, though Dodd also holds that it is impossible to disprove John had some knowledge of the synoptics.
C. B. Caird, The Gospel of St. Luke (London: Adam & Charles Black, 1968. First published, Penguin Books, 1963) p. 139.
C. B. Caird, The Gospel of St. Luke (London: Adam & Charles Black, 1968. First published, Penguin Books, 1963) p. 139.
See Vernon K. Robbins, ‘By Land and by Sea’, pp. 240–1, and John Drury, Tradition and Design in Luke’s Gospel: a Study in Early Christian Historiography (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1976) pp. 96ff., ‘The Great Omission and the Gospel’s Axis’: ‘The “time of the gentiles” (Lk. 21:24) is not yet. Here is the reason, weighty because integral to his historical scheme, for Luke’s Great Omission. … Gentile excursions are, very precisely, another story’ (p. 98).
This perennial concern is dealt with, in one way or another, by numerous critics. John Drury, Tradition and Design in Luke’s Gospel, chapter I, ‘Introduction — The Well of the Past’, pp. 1–14, is especially suggestive. J. C. O’Neill, The Theology of Acts in its Historical Setting (London: SPCK, 2nd edn, 1970) p. 178, sees the church discovering its independent destiny through the journey narrative.
William C. Robinson, Jr, ‘The Theological Context for Interpreting Luke’s Travel Narrative’, Journal of Biblical Literature 79 (1960) pp. 20–31, argues that the journey narrative serves Luke’s teaching on authenticated witness.
See Edward Schillebeeckx, Jesus. An Experiment in Christology, trans. Hubert Hoskins from the Dutch edn of 1974 (London: Collins, Fount Paperbacks, 1983) pp. 298ff., who points out that the consensus of the gospels suggests that Jesus’ preaching in Galilee was a failure, and in light of that he concentrated on a small group of disciples and on venturing to Jerusalem where he must have expected rejection. How much he guessed at, or foresaw, the frightful consequences of that rejection and his subsequent treatment at the hands of the Romans remains uncertain.
See for instance Leon Morris, The Gospel According to St. Luke (London: Inter-Varsity Press, 1974) p. 286: the ‘others’ are the gentiles, an unthinkable thing for Jesus’ listeners, which is why they say ‘God forbid’ (20:16).
Raymond E. Brown, The Birth of the Messiah: a Commentary on the Infancy Narratives in Matthew and Luke (New York: Doubleday, 1977) pp. 84, 242 et passim.
W. D. Davies, The Gospel and the Land. Early Christianity and Jewish Territorial Doctrine (University of California Press, 1974) p. 260.
See Eric Franklin, Christ the Lord: a Study of the Purpose and Theology of Luke-Acts (London: SPCK, 1975) p. 102; Carroll Stuhlmueller, ‘The Gospel According to Luke’, ed. Raymond E. Brown et al., The Jerome Biblical Commentary, II, 153: ‘Gradually the notion of Temple becomes identified with Jesus himself.’
On the vexed question of the kingdom within (whether an inner spiritual reality, within our power, or in the midst of us), see Eduard Schweizer, The Good News According to Luke, trans. David E. Green (London: SPCK, 1984) pp. 272ff. Schweizer concludes, p. 276: ‘The whole discussion emphasises that we cannot picture what is to come in spatial or temporal terms. It therefore uses a variety of images intended to set people in motion and shape their present lives. … In fact the Kingdom of God chooses to relate to us by coming into our midst. Therefore we cannot assign the kingdom to its proper place because in Jesus’ work it shapes the entire present.’
Robert Graves, King Jesus (London: Cassell, 1946). I summarise the argument as the novel presents it. Edward Schillebeeckx, Jesus, pp. 299, 301, suggests that Jesus might have thought he would die by the sword like John the Baptist before him, Herod having the ius gladii, the right to execute by the sword.
Martin Dibelius, A Fresh Approach to the New Testament and Early Christian Literature (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1936) p. 263. For an account of Dibelius’ contribution to the criticism of Acts, his influence on Ernst Haenchen, and on a generally sceptical attitude to Luke’s reliability as a historian, see Ward Gasque, A History of the Critisicm of the Acts of the Apostles, Chapter IX, ‘The Influence of Dibelius’, pp. 201ff.
Debate on the fictional portrait of Paul in Acts is complex. Three useful articles have been edited by Leander E. Keck and J. Louis Martyn, Studies in Luke-Acts (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980). These are: W. C. Van Unnik, ‘Luke-Acts, a Storm Centre in Contemporary Scholarship’, pp. 26ff., outlining the uncharacteristic quality of the Acts speeches attributed to Paul; Eduard Schweizer, ‘Concerning the Speeches in Acts’, pp. 208ff., dealing with Peter’s speeches as well as Paul’s; Erwin R. Goodenough, ‘The Perspectives of Acts’, pp. 51ff., suggesting that Paul’s being a disciple of Gamaliel and a Roman citizen are likely to be Lucan fictions.
Also, F. F. Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles: Commentary on the Book of Acts (London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1954) p. 126, notices that Luke’s usually fine Greek becomes unaccountably obscure when the apostles speak, thus suggesting that the author is not concerned about style. I. Howard Marshall, Luke: Historian and Theologian, p. 75, concludes that ‘The general outline of Paul’s career in Acts fits in well with what is disclosed in his letters’, and ‘The view that Paul’s theology is inaccurately presented in Acts is a palpable exaggeration, provided we do not ask too much of Luke and do not demand of him a verbatim report of Paul’s words.’
See B. Gärtner, The Areopagus Speech and Natural Revelation (Uppsala: Acta Seminarii, no. 21, 1955); H. Conzelmann, ‘The Address of Paul on the Areopagus’, ed. Leander E. Keck and J. Louis Martyn, Studies in Luke-Acts, pp. 217–30; Martin Dibelius, Studies in Acts of the Aposties, pp. 186–91, ‘Literary Allusions in the Speeches in Acts’.
For examples of the first kind, see F. J. Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake, The Beginnings of Christianity, 5 vols. (London: Macmillan, 1920–33), vol. II, Prolegomena II, Criticism (1922) p. 158: ‘Few students doubt that the origin of the “we” sections is the actual diary of a composition of Paul. But to what extent this diary went, and the relation of the diarist to the compiler of Acts is disputed.’ See also Carroll Stuhlmueller, ‘The Gospel According to Luke’, ed. Raymond E. Brown et al., The Jerome Biblical Commentary, II, 198. The second kind of interpretation has been most fully developed by Vernon K. Robbins, ‘By Land and by Sea’.
For the third theory see Martin Dibelius, zz Studies in the Acts of the Apostles, ed. Heinrich Greeven, trans. Mary Ling (London: SCM, 1956) pp. 104ff., who finds traces of an itinerary document: ‘Everywhere it seems that there underlies the account of the journeys an itinerary or stations where Paul stopped.… Such an itinerary seems to have formed the framework for the central part of Acts.’ Against Haenchen’s theory that Luke invented much and had few historical data, I. Howard Marshall, Luke: Historian and Theologian, pp. 67–8, points to the ‘we sections’: ‘It seems beyond question that some kind of itinerary or itineraries lies behind these sections, even if the limits and contents of such sources cannot be closely defined.’
See Johannes Munck, The Anchor Bible. The Acts of the Apostles, revised by F. Albright and C. S. Mann (New York: Doubleday, 1967) p. 122;
H. Metzger, St. Paul’s Journeys to the Greek Orient, ed. A. Parrot, Studies in Biblical Archaeology, 4 (London: 1955) pp.25, 34.
C. S. C. Williams, A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles (London: Adam & Charles Black, 1957) p. 160: ‘Perhaps Paul fell ill with malaria, as Ramsay suggested, and for a cure sought the high ground of the mainland …’.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 1989 Patrick Grant
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Grant, P. (1989). Luke-Acts: the Ironic Travellers. In: Reading the New Testament. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-09310-6_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-09310-6_4
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-09312-0
Online ISBN: 978-1-349-09310-6
eBook Packages: Palgrave Religion & Philosophy CollectionPhilosophy and Religion (R0)