Luke/Acts and the End of History

Kylie Crabbe

• Publisher: De Gruyter
• Year: 2019
• ISBN:
  9783110614756
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Biblical Criticism & Interpretation

Luke/Acts and the End of History investigates how understandings of history in diverse texts of the Graeco-Roman period illuminate Lukan eschatology. In addition to Luke/Acts, it considers ten comparison texts as detailed case studies throughout the monograph: Polybius's Histories, Diodorus Siculus's Library of History, Virgil's Aeneid, Valerius Maximus's Memorable Doings and Sayings, Tacitus's Histories, 2 Maccabees, the Qumran War Scroll, Josephus's Jewish War, 4 Ezra, and 2 Baruch.

The study makes a contribution both in its method and in the questions it asks. By placing Luke/Acts alongside a broad range of texts from Luke's wider cultural setting, it overcomes two methodological shortfalls frequently evident in recent research: limiting comparisons of key themes to texts of similar genre, and separating non-Jewish from Jewish parallels. Further, by posing fresh questions designed to reveal writers' underlying conceptions of history—such as beliefs about the shape and end of history or divine and human agency in history—this monograph challenges the enduring tendency to underestimate the centrality of eschatology for Luke's account. Influential post-war scholarship reflected powerful concerns about "salvation history" arising from its particular historical setting, and criticised Luke for focusing on history instead of eschatology due to the parousia's delay. Though some elements of this thesis have been challenged, Luke continues to be associated with concerns about the delayed parousia, affecting contemporary interpretation. By contrast, this study suggests that viewing Luke/Acts within a broader range of texts from Luke's literary context highlights his underlying teleological conception of history. It demonstrates not only that Luke retains a sense of eschatological urgency seen in other New Testament texts, but a structuring of history more akin to the literature of late Second Temple Judaism than the non-Jewish Graeco-Roman historiographies with which Luke/Acts is more commonly compared. The results clarify not only Lukan eschatology, but related concerns or effects of his eschatology, such as Luke's politics and approach to suffering. This monograph thereby offers an important corrective to readings of Luke/Acts based on established exegetical habits, and will help to inform interpretation for scholars and students of Luke/Acts as well as classicists and theologians interested in these key questions.

Chapter 1: Introduction

“Everything began with history and eschatology.”¹ So François Bovon commences his authoritative summary of fifty-five years of Lukan studies. On the subsequent pages he evokes the tightly-wound series of problems through which interpreters have troubled over, and even reprimanded, Luke.² Bovon deftly captures a core issue: divergent views of Luke’s purpose and the major themes of his Doppelwerk, such as his portrayal of the plan of God, are bound up in assessments of Luke’s eschatological consciousness (or alleged lack thereof).³ In this monograph I argue that Luke’s eschatology—that is, his understanding of the end of history—is indeed central to this whole suite of issues, as Luke explains the past, offers assurance for the future, and exhorts appropriate human response in the present. Furthermore, by setting Luke/Acts⁴ alongside a broad range of ancient sources, I demonstrate that separating history from eschatology in Luke/Acts is a false distinction.

Two broad strands of Lukan scholarship have contributed to common misrepresentations of Lukan eschatology. Influential mid-twentieth-century scholarship placed Luke within a presumed trajectory of decreasing eschatological interest and increasing focus on the day-to-day matters of the church over the generations following the first disciples.⁵ Drawing on polemical contrasts between Paul and Luke and accentuating synoptic differences, these studies portrayed Luke as distinctively uneschatological within the NT.⁶ More recent studies have particularly considered the genre of Luke/Acts instead, tending to emphasise certain similarities to non-Jewish Graeco-Roman texts, while overlooking themes (such as those of an eschatological character) that these texts do not share.⁷ In different ways, each of these two strands has influenced an enduring tendency to underestimate the centrality of eschatology for understanding Luke/Acts.

Expanding the range of ancient sources suitable for pertinent comparison, this study investigates how understandings of history in the Graeco-Roman period illuminate Lukan eschatology. The analysis underscores Luke’s periodised and teleological schema of history, the important continuities and differences in Luke’s portrayal of divine and human agency in history, and how all of these features are shaped by Luke’s understanding of the relationship between the end of history and the present time. I argue that the resultant insight into history in Luke/Acts clarifies not only Lukan eschatology, but related concerns or effects of his eschatology: Luke’s politics and approach to suffering.

1 A note on nomenclature

Throughout this study I use “history” in its philosophical sense to denote understandings of the whole “course of human affairs,”⁸ also encompassing elements of a writer’s understanding of time that may extend beyond affairs in which humans are involved. A schema of history can include a conception not only of the beginning and the end of history, but also, for instance, events beyond the end of history. Additionally, throughout the discussion I reserve the term “historiography” for a literary genre of texts that give an account of events.⁹ This definition does not challenge the legitimacy of the other dictionary meanings for “historiography” (in addition to “written history” the OED includes “the writing of history” and “the study of history-writing”).¹⁰ Neither does my limited use of “history” undermine other meanings of the term. I am simply attempting a measure of clarity in a work that will make considerable use of so many related terms by excluding these other meanings from the present discussion. I use “end” to mean the “termination, conclusion,”¹¹ while recognising that this can be portrayed in diverse ways when related to history, some of which also include a sense of “goal”; on the varied ways in which ancient writers portray the “end” of history, see Chapter 3.

2 Hans Conzelmann and post-war debates about uneschatological Luke

Shortly following the Second World War, in which he himself was injured, Hans Conzelmann (1915 – 1989) published a work which would profoundly shape the conversation within, and assumptions of, Lukan studies.¹² In Die Mitte der Zeit, Conzelmann argued that Luke responded to a crisis caused by the parousia’s delay¹³ by distancing his narrative from imminent eschatological expectation and focusing instead on the time of the early church as a new salvation-historical period. For Conzelmann, this separation of history from eschatology reflected the evangelist’s distortion of the primitive kerygma.¹⁴ It is important that Conzelmann’s work is understood in its own historical context: this was not an endorsement of Lukan theology, but reflected Conzelmann’s grave concerns about what he perceived as Luke’s project of identifying the divine purpose with the events of history. Concomitantly, Conzelmann posited that the shift from eschatological expectation to salvation history had steered Luke’s politics and understanding of suffering.¹⁵

The claims put forward in Die Mitte der Zeit were not new in every respect.¹⁶ Scholars such as Albert Schweitzer¹⁷ and one of Conzelmann’s great influences, Rudolf Bultmann,¹⁸ had already advanced theories about the delayed parousia and its consequences for early Christian communities and NT texts. Likewise, as Conzelmann theorised about Luke’s reasons for focusing on a historical account (especially in narrating the life of the early church in Acts), he cited Philipp Vielhauer’s earlier argument: that simply by writing a narrative of the early church in Acts, Luke demonstrated a turn to focus on history instead of eschatology.¹⁹ But Conzelmann was responsible for at least two significant developments. Giving prominence to his new redaction-critical method, he claimed to have demonstrated Luke’s systematic tendency to remove expectation of the imminent parousia from his sources.²⁰ And he developed a detailed account of Luke’s schema of salvation history, which he identified as Luke’s “solution” to this delay:

If Luke has definitely abandoned belief in the early expectation, what does he offer on the positive side as an adequate solution of the problem? An outline of the successive stages in redemptive history (der gegliederten Kontinuität der Heilsgeschichte) according to God’s plan.²¹

Conzelmann thus proposed a threefold structure of history (the times of Israel, Jesus, and the church), arguing Luke has moved the time of Jesus from the end of history to “die Mitte.”²²

Conzelmann rightly identified the importance of both periodisation and the divine plan to Luke’s understanding of history. However, in light of his assumptions about Luke’s situation and his negative assessment of what he perceived to be Luke’s project, he overlooked continuities between Luke’s understanding of history and other contemporaneous writers,²³ with serious ramifications for his influential representation of Lukan eschatology and its effects. For instance, Conzelmann took periodisation to be a characteristically Lukan modification, whereas this feature is shared by texts from Jewish apocalypses to Diodorus’s historiography.²⁴ Moreover, historical apocalypses demonstrate that expectations of an imminent end are not mutually exclusive with a periodised schema of history overseen by a divine plan. When Luke’s portrayal of history is placed within a broader context, I suggest, a quite different view of Lukan eschatology emerges.

2.1 The reception of Conzelmann’s work

The significance of Conzelmann’s contribution was immediately recognised, though his work was not received uncritically. Henry Cadbury referenced pre-publication summaries from Conzelmann in support of his delayed parousia hypothesis,²⁵ and C. H. Dodd purportedly commented, “I suspect we shall have to give (the Lukan writings) over, so to speak, to Conzelmann.”²⁶ Several studies built on Conzelmann’s methodology and findings. For instance, Erich Grässer extended the approach into a more detailed assessment of Acts as well as Mark and Matthew²⁷ and Günter Klein applied Conzelmann’s model to Luke’s prefaces.²⁸ Ernst Käsemann embraced the salvation-historical framework with some venom at Luke’s endeavour and employed labels that would become key criticisms: Luke was a representative of Frühkatholizismus and proponent of theologia gloriae.²⁹

Not all scholars who supported Conzelmann’s conclusions, however, took as negative a view as the Bultmann school. Ulrich Wilckens affirmed the framework of salvation history, relegation of imminent eschatological expectation, and the assessment that Luke was early catholic, without judging any of these features to be negative³⁰—a position with which many contemporary treatments of Lukan eschatology show considerable sympathy.³¹

Numerous studies accepted the broad strokes of Conzelmann’s historical schema, but suggested amendments to particular elements. For instance, some debated the exact points of transition between historical periods.³² By contrast, for writers like E. Earle Ellis, Luke’s account reflects a balance between both the imminent and future aspects of eschatology, as Luke seeks to counter not the crisis of the parousia’s delay, but the problem of disciples who were too focused on “apocalyptic” expectation. In notable distinction from Conzelmann, Ellis emphasises a two-age schema of history, though he divides this timing into two further stages for Jesus and his followers. For Ellis, Luke’s concern lies in correcting ethical practice, hence Luke emphasises the unknown timing but inst...

Table of contents

• Title Page
• Copyright
• Contents
• Preface
• Abbreviations
• Translations
• Chapter 1: Introduction
• Chapter 2: Genre, themes that transcend genre, and the approach of this study
• Chapter 3: The direction and shape of history
• Chapter 4: Determinism and divine guidance of history
• Chapter 5: Human responsibility and freedom
• Chapter 6: The present and the end of history
• Chapter 7: Conclusion
• Appendices
• Bibliography
• Index of ancient sources
• Index of modern authors
• Index of subjects